Kanchan Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20527 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -214 Year- 2016 Thana -BIBHUTIPUR District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Kanchan Kumari, D/o Late Ramashray Mahto, resident of VillageDhaniyapatti, Police Station- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Manoj Kumar - 1, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sessions Trial No. 09/17, arising out of Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 214 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that Mukesh Kumar, brother-inlaw of his brother Manoj Kumar, was missing from the house and his dead body was found near Middle School, Pakahi. The informant suspected that PACS chairman Ranjit Kumar Mahto, Niranjan Kumar had threatened his brother of dire consequences and they might have killed Mukesh Kumar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. During course of investigation one Ravindra Kumar @ Lalo confessed his guilt and disclosed that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20527 of 2017 (3) dt.21-06-2017 2/2 he called Mukesh Kumar on 17.09.2016 and killed him only because he refused to marry with Kanchan Kumari, the petitioner. It is further submitted that Kanchan Kumari, the petitioner and the deceased were in love with each other. Ravindra Kumar @ Lalo did not disclose that the petitioner assaulted the deceased. Coaccused Bipin Prasad Singh @ Bipin Kumar has already been granted bail vide order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5510 of 2017 on 10.02.2017 and Ram Pyari Devi and Renu Kumari have also been granted bail vide order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16493 of 2017 on 04.04.2017. The case of the petitioner stands almost on the same footing as name of the petitioner also figured in the confessional statement. No incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner is a lady, the petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rosera at Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 09/17, arising out of Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 214 of 2016.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T