Ahilya Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18312 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2018 Thana- BEERPUR District- Begusarai ====================================================== Ahilya Devi, Wife of Manoj Thakur, Resident of Village - Babhangama, P.S.- Birpur, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. A.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate Miss. Preety Kunwar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Atul Chandra, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-06-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Birpur P. S. Case No. 109 of 2018, disclosing offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation as per written report is that the daughter of one of the accused Manoj Thakur, who was trying to make relationship with the grandson of the informant which was objected, due to that accused persons came and cheated him on dire consequences. It is also alleged that in the morning of 13.09.2018 while he was on morning walk, he saw the petitioner and other accused running out of the room of the grandson of the informant and he went inside the room, he saw the dead body of his grandson. As such, he suspects the hands of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18312 of 2019(3) dt.18-06-2019 2/2 petitioner and other accused persons.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as there was no occasion for the grandson to sleep by opening the door and further the allegation that the informant saw the accused persons coming out from the room has not been corroborated by any of the witnesses. Petitioner is a lady. Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant also, who has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that there are sufficient materials that the petitioner and other accused persons were coming out from the house and the same has been corroborated by the other witnesses in paragraphs- 76 & 77 of the case diary. Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As such, the same is dismissed.

With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T