Punita Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13822 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2024 Thana- PALI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.
Punita Devi W/o- Vikash Kumar Village- Tekari Ps- Kinjar District- Arwal 2.
Rajan Yadav @ Ranjan Singh @ Rajan Singh S/o- Ram Sevak Yadav @ Ram Sevak Singh Village- Lodipur Ps- Pali Kako Dist- Jehanabad 3.
Suryamani Devi W/o- Rajan Yadav @ Ranjan Singh @ Rajan Singh VillageLodipur Ps- Pali Kako Dist- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate For the Informant ;
Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pronoti Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-07-2025 Heard Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Pronoti Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Pali P.S. Case No. 78 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 02.09.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that the petitioners committed the murder of his son, namely, Vikash Kumar (now, deceased).
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that petitioner no.1 is the wife of the deceased, petitioner no.2 is father-in-law and petitioner no.3 is mother-in-law of the deceased. The informant has filed the present case merely on the basis of suspicion and informant is not the eye witness of the present occurrence and deceased died due to motorcycle accident which has come during investigation in paragraph nos. 28, 29 and 30 of the case diary. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused person, namely Lalti Devi @ Lalti Kumari has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 4026 of 2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are involved in the present crime in question and apart from that petitioner no.3 has clean antecedent and petitioner nos.1 and 2 have one criminal antecedent but fairly submits on the basis of supplementary affidavit that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are on bail in the pending matters.
3/4
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, similarly situated co-accused person has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.-1st Class, Jehanabad in connection with Pali P.S. Case No. 78 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i.
Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
4/4 verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T