Basanti Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26977 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2015 Thana- BELHAR District- Banka ====================================================== 1.

BASANTI DEVI Wife of Late Chhotu Tanti, 2.

Anita Devi Wife of Ashok Tanti, 3.

Puja Devi Wife of Kailash Tanti, 4.

Soniya Devi @ Soni Devi Wife of Santosh Tanti, All are resident of Village-Bashmata, P.S.-Belhar, District-Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ambrish Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammad Sufyan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Belhar P.S. Case No.129 of 2015 registered under Section 302 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that his daughter-in-law Khushboo Devi was going for vaccination of her 3 1⁄2 months old daughter but the petitioners and others assaulted her daughter-in-law and her child. The child of Khusboo Devi died. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the course of trial, the informant and other witnesses have turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. On this ground the petitioners again moved for grant of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26977 of 2019(2) dt.17-07-2019 2/2 anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that informant himself in his deposition in Court stated that his thumb impression was obtained on a plain paper but it appears that prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners was rejected on 28.06.2016. The petitioners remained outside the Court and waited for the conclusion of trial by gaining over the prosecution witness and again after three years, the petitioners moved for anticipatory bail. There is specific allegation in the F.I.R. itself that the petitioners assaulted the daughter-in-law of the informant and her minor child in which minor child of his daughter-in-law was killed.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T