Vidyapati Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22333 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- AURAI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Vidyapati Sah S/o Prahalad Sah @ Pralad Sah Resident of Village- Mahrauli, P.S.- Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31244 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- AURAI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ragini Devi @ Ragni Devi W/o- Amarjeet Sah Resident of VillageMaharauli PS- Aurai, Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 36399 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- AURAI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Punita Devi @ Punita Kumari W/O Prahlad Sah @ Pralad Sah VillageMahrauli, P.S.- Aurai, Distt.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22333 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Vibhuti Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31244 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Subodh Kumar For the State :

Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Vibhuti Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 36399 of 2025)

2/4 For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashank Shekhar For the State :

Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Vibhuti Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2.

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Aurai P.S. Case No. 05 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3.

The informant reported that his 10-year-old son Vikram Kumar went missing on 05.01.2025 and was later found murdered inside the locked house of Prahalad Sah. The boy's neck had been slit, and the body was discovered with the help of villagers. The informant suspects that Vidyapati Sah and Punita Devi are responsible for the murder.

4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are in custody since 07-01-2025. Petitioners, namely, Vidyapati Sah & Punita Devi @ Punita Kumari bears one criminal antecedent each, whereas petitioner, namely, Ragini Devi @ Ragni Devi has no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail applications. 5.

It has been further submitted by the petitioners' counsel that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the

3/4 present case. Petitioners namely, Vidyapati Sah & Punita Devi @ Punita Kumari are named in the FIR, whereas name of petitioner, namely, Ragini Devi @ Ragni Devi surfaced in this case during investigation. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. Except confessional statements of the petitioners, there is no cogent material against the petitioners. Police after completion of investigation has submitted charge sheet in this case.

6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. Postmortem report corroborates with the allegation levelled in the FIR, as the cause of death is found due to injuries sustained by heavy sharp edged weapon. It is contended that all the accused persons have confessed their guilt, wherein it is stated that Punita Devi slitted the neck of the deceased, whereas Ragini Devi was caught holding the legs of the deceased as also she has brought the weapon used in the commission of the offence, and Vidyapati Sah was standing at the place of occurrence. In confessional statement, Ragini Devi admitted that she was in love with her younger brother-in-law, Ranjit Sah and when the informant, Sunil Sah, reprimanded Ranjit Sah over the matter, Ranjit began distancing himself from her.

4/4 Feeling aggrieved, Ragini Devi conspired with her neighbour, Punita Devi, and subsequently murdered the son of Sushil Sah by slitting his throat.

7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners is hereby rejected.

8.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T