Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17407/2017rejected

Indu Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-05Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17407 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -281 Year- 2016 Thana -WARISNAGAR District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Indu Devi, W/o Mohan Mahto, Resident of Village- Satmalpur, P.S.- Warisnagar Distt.- Samastipur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar No-1, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 05-07-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Warisnagar P.S. Case No. 281/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The maternal grand-father of the deceased alleged that his daughter Manju Devi was married to Mohan Mahto. His daughter gave birth to three children namely, Puja Kumari, Manoj Kumar and Manisha Kumari (deceased) aged about thirteen years. Ten years ago the daughter died and Mohan Mahto solemnized second marriage with Indu Devi. The informant further alleged that Mohan Mahto and Indu Devi used to torture his granddaughter Manisha Kumari. On 10.12.2016, the informant got information that Mohan Mahto and his second wife Indu Devi

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17407 of 2017 (3) dt.05-07-2017 2/2 assaulted Manisha and poisoned her to death.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the victim committed suicide and it is case of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, but from perusal of para 6 of the case-diary, it appears that Manoj Kumar brother of the deceased Manisha, has very categorically stated that the petitioner and her husband assaulted the deceased and poisoned her to death. The petitioner and others also hurriedly disposed of her dead-body. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T