Masomat Savitri Devi @ Karjavali v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15141 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-364 Year-2019 Thana- BISFI District- Madhubani ====================================================== MASOMAT SAVITRI DEVI @ KARJAVALI, aged about 56 years, Wife of Late Bhola Mandal, Resident of Village - Raghauli, P.S.- Bisfi, Distt - Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party :

Mrs.Meena Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-06-2020 Due to COVID-19 Pandemic, the matter is being taken up by way of virtual Court proceeding.

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 272, 273, 353, 341, 323/34 of the IPC and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 68.400 liters wine is said to have been recovered.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15141 of 2020(2) dt.11-06-2020 2/3 petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is alleged that total 68.400 liters wine is recovered from the joint house of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come in the present case on the basis of alleged recovery made from joint house of the petitioner where other family members also reside. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. Nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 of Cr. P.C.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R/ Complaint Case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the lockdown, the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on her personal bond to the satisfaction of learned 2nd A.D.J.- cum-Special Judge (Excise Act), Madhubani, in connection with Bisfi P.S. Case No. 364 of 2019, G.R. No. 2267 of 2019, subject

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15141 of 2020(2) dt.11-06-2020 3/3 to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each within a period of seven weeks to the satisfaction of the court concerned in connection with the aforesaid case.

(Sudhir Singh, J) U.K./- U T