Rinki Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7708 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2016 Thana- SATHI District- West Champaran ====================================================== RINKI DEVI Wife of Sri Ramesh Mukhiya Resident of Village - Pipra, P.S.- Chanpatia, Distt - West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 16-06-2020 The present petition has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Rashmi Jha and the learned APP for the State, Ms. Anita Kumari Singh. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Sathi P.S. Case No. 36 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 366-A and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation is that when the informant had gone for call of nature and had returned back to her house, her own brother, namely, Rajan Mukhiya and daughter, namely, Guddi

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7708 of 2020(2) dt.16-06-2020 2/3 Kumari, aged about 12 years, were not present in the house and even after search, they could not be traced. It was further found that a cash sum of Rs. 40,000/- and ornaments were missing and the same had been taken away after breaking the lock of the box present in the house of the informant. It is alleged that the coaccused, Rajan Mukhiya had kidnapped the daughter of the informant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent, she has been falsely implicated in the present case and she is having a clean antecedent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the statement made by the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to show that the victim girl was taken forcibly by her maternal uncle to Chandigarh where he wanted to marry her forcibly and she has not named the petitioner to be having any complicity in the matter.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also considering the fact that the victim girl, in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has not alleged any complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime, I deem it fit and proper to enlarge the petitioner above

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7708 of 2020(2) dt.16-06-2020 3/3 named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah in connection with Sathi P.S. Case No. 36 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U T