Meena Devi @ Veena Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10660 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2022 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== MEENA DEVI @ VEENA DEVI, Wife of Late Sunil Mehta, Resident of Village - Temua (Ward No.- 06), P.S.- Chhatapur (Rajeshwarui O.P.), District - Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arun Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Informant/s : Mr. Kamal Kishor Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-07-2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 361 of 2022 arising out of Chhatapur P.S. Case No. 146 of 2022, dated 25.04.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution, the informant alleged that this petitioner who is sister-in-law (Bhabho) of the informant killed the informant's father. Further it is alleged that this petitioner and her daughters had threatened them in the past to kill him and also, co-accused Nand Kishore Yadav (Sarpanch
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10660 of 2023(5) dt.26-07-2023 2/3 of Rajeshwari East Panchayat) was accomplice to the alleged offence.
4. The main submissions advanced by petitioner's counsel are that the petitioner is a lady and has been languishing in jail since 26.04.2022 and against her there is no direct allegation and the main allegation of committing murder of the deceased is against co-accused Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Kr. and there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence of murder and petitioner is simply alleged to be the member of the conspiracy and her trial has started.
5. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is a serious allegation against this petitioner and she was the main conspirator who conspired with the co-accused Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Kr. to commit the murder of her father-inlaw.
6. Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and the case diary of this Case. There is a serious allegation appearing against this petitioner, though there is no direct evidence against this petitioner but the informant, who is a close relative of this petitioner, made serious allegations against this petitioner in the FIR and revealed that this petitioner was having relation with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10660 of 2023(5) dt.26-07-2023 3/3 some unknown persons who often used to come to her home and the said illicit activity was always objected by the deceased, therefore this petitioner hatched up a conspiracy with unknown co-accused persons and in furtherance of that conspiracy the victim was murdered in a very planned manner. As the trial of the petitioner has started and serious allegation appears against her, this Court is not inclined to accept her prayer for bail. Accordingly, petitioner's prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. The petitioner may renew her prayer for bail after examination of all non-official witnesses of the prosecution.
8. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and take steps to conclude the same in the next six months, if petitioner's trial is not concluded within the said period then she may also renew her prayer for bail. (Shailendra Singh, J.) Maynaz/- U T