Rupam Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.54122 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -265 Year- 2016 Thana -JAMUI District- JAMUI ======================================================
1. Rupam Devi, W/o Dinesh Saw,
2. Sarojni Devi, W/o Fakira Saw, both resident of village - Khairma, P.S. & District - Jamui. .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 21-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and also learned counsel for the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 265 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 326, 335, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegedly, when the informant was returning after performing puja with her husband and started cooking food, the petitioners and co-accused having common intention came and the petitioner Sarojni Devi gave order to kill her and in the meantime, co-accused Priyanka Devi brought Kerosene oil and the petitioner Rupam Devi sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and then fatherin-law burnt with matches, resulting, the informant started burning and after hearing her cry and alarm nearby persons came and dodged the fire.
Submission is of false implication and that prosecution story appears not probable and reliable, the petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54122 of 2016 (2) dt.21-12-2016 2/2 no.1 is gotni and petitioner no.2 is mother-in-law. The husband is not an accused in this case and only for a view to take more shares the case has been lodged falsely. At the instance of the husband of the informant family members have been roped in this case and, as such, the petitioners deserve sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail by submitting that 60% burn injury have been found at Jamui Sadar Hospital and the victim was referred to Patna Apollo Burn Hospital for further treatment.
In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest to them and accordingly their such prayer stands rejected in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 265 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui.
However, in case and if so advised the petitioners surrender and seek regular bail then their prayer for regular bail shall be considered preferably on the same day on its own merits without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T