Ranjana Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7201 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -114 Year- 2004 Thana -MOHANIA District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Ranjana Devi, Wife of Mantu Sharma, Resident of Village- Muthani, Police Station- Mohania, District- Kaimur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 06-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 07.12.2016 in connection with Mohinaya P.S. Case No. 114 of 2004 for the offence alleged under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code although the case was instituted under Section 372/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution story as narrated by the informant is that on 16.06.2004 when her daughter did not return from the house of one Ramrati Devi she made query and Ramrati Devi assured that that the victim will return within 2-3 days but she did not return. In this respect a Panchayati was also held but again she did not return. In the meanwhile, the informant suspected that Ramrati Devi in connivance with others abducted the victim for selling her. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation upon the petitioner is that she had

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7201 of 2017 (2) dt.06-03-2017 2/2 given her 'kheer' to eat after which she became unconscious. There is no other allegation against this petitioner. It has further been submitted that Vijay Vishkarma who alleged to have married the victim girl is already on bail and facing trial. It is further submitted that Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable against the petitioner.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and from materials available on record, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur in connection with Mohania P.S. Case No. 114 of 2004 subject to the condition that the petitioner will appear before the police/Court on each and every date and failure on two consecutive dates without assigning any reason will entail cancellation of his bail bonds.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) Prakash/- U T