Lalita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18135 of 2015 (2) dt.22-05-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18135 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -117 Year- 2014 Thana -HATHAURI District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Lalita Devi .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.K. Sinha (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 22-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

On the confessional statement of co-accused, Brijnandan Das, pointing out the explosive as well as amount procured from ransom having with the petitioner, house of petitioner was raided and during course of search 15 detonators, wire, receipt disclosing at Serial No.38, Rs. 15,000/- and Serial No.39, Rs. 2,50,000/- were seized for which petitioner has not explained.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is a lady and is under custody since 29.10.2014. It has also been submitted that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. It has further been submitted that the house is jointly occupied by so many male and female members and on account thereof, individual liability of petitioner cannot be fasten. So submitted

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18135 of 2015 (2) dt.22-05-2015 that petitioner be released on bail.

Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner's husband is not an accused and in likewise manner, the other family members whose presence is not at all incorporated in the written report. Apart from this, there happens to be extra judicial confessional statement of an accused specifically pointing out the petitioner and on the basis thereof, house of petitioner has been searched wherefrom the aforesaid explosive along with other items in terms of seizure list have been seized for which, petitioner has got no explanation. Accordingly, I do not see it a fit case for grant of bail. The same stands rejected.

However, the learned lower court is directed to expedite the trial in the background of period of custody. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) perwez U T