Lalita Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26614 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-478 Year-2024 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Lalita Devi W/O Pundeo Ram R/O Village- Laukaria, P.S- Harsidhi, Distt.- East Champaran.
2.
Madhu Kumari D/O Pundeo Ram R/O Village- Laukaria, P.S- Harsidhi, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP For the respondent :
Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate :
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate :
Mr. Gautam Raja, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-07-2025 Heard Mr. Sandeep Kuamr, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Parmanand Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the bail application with respect to petitioner no. 2, namely, Madhu Kumari with liberty to move before the appropriate forum, if so advised.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed as withdrawn with respect to petitioner no. 2.
2/4
2. Petitioner no.1 is apprehending her arrest in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 478 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 07.09.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleges that petitioner no.1 alongwith other co-accused persons have allured and tricked the son of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence and even no one has seen the alleged occurrence and merely on the basis of suspicion the name of the petitioner has transpired in the present case and except the suspicion, no other cogent material has come during investigation against the petitioner to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and
3/4 circumstances and the petitioner has clean antecedent, let petitioner no.1, above named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 478 of 2024,, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her
4/4 criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Jyoti Kumari/- U T