Phoola Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6395 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -324 Year- 2015 Thana -KUDHNI District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Phoola Devi, Wife of Devendra Maharo, Resident of Village-Turki Chainpur, P.S.-Kurhani, District-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yugal Kishore For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Pronati Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-04-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Kurhani (O.P. Turki) P.S. Case No. 324 of 2015, registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur. The accusation is that in the evening of 04.09.2015 at about 7.00 P.M., seven persons named in the F.I.R., including the petitioner came in the house of the informant and started searching his father Ram Rup Mahto, when they did not find his father then all of them went from the house of informant after giving threatening for dire consequences. Thereafter, at 11.30 P.M. in the night grandson of Lalmohammad aged about 12 years came and informed the informant about lying of Ram Rup Mahto near the canal in injured condition. Thereafter, informant went

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6395 of 2017 (2) dt.04-04-2017 2/2 there and found his father has been died.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the petitioner is a blind lady and she has falsely been implicated in this case as none has seen the occurrence of Marpit to the father of the informant by this petitioner and other accused. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of State opposed the prayer of Anticipatory Bail of the petitioner with submission that on 04.09.2015, all the F.I.R. named accused, including the petitioner, came to the house of informant and searched his father and thereafter his father was found dead in the same night.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T