Lalaki Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18497 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2019 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== LALAKI DEVI Wife of Shivshankar Ram @ Sheo Shankar Singh @ Sheo Shankar Ram Resident of Village - Sakaddi, P.S.- Koilwar, District - Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Anand For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 01-07-2020 This case has been heard through video-conferencing. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with her husband is said to have brutally assaulted the husband of the informant and lastly he succumbed to his injuries. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. She has been falsely implicated in this case. No incriminating article has been recovered from her conscious physical possession. It is also submitted that one of the minor child is with the petitioner in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18497 of 2020(3) dt.01-07-2020 2/2 jail custody. Charge has been framed against the petitioner. Informant has been examined as P.W.1 in this case and in her cross-examination she has accepted that she was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 14.05.2019.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that there is specific allegation of assault by means of bricks on the chest of the deceased against the petitioner. Hence, she does not deserve bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of nine months.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T