Somani Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30117 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2024 Thana- KISHANPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.

Somani Devi W/O Jagdeo Sharma @ Jagdev Sharma @ Jagdev Chaupal R/O Parsa Madho Ward no. 7, P.S.- Kishanpur, Dist.- Supaul 2.

Poonam Devi @ Poonam Kumari W/O Raj Kumar Sharma R/O Parsa Madho Ward no. 7, P.S.- Kishanpur, Dist.- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-07-2025 Heard Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 83 of 2024 dated 22.03.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 376 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The main submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel are that this is second attempt of the petitioners for getting the relief of bail and the first prayer of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 68792 of 2024 and now the petitioners are renewing their prayer mainly on the ground of their custody period and also, on account of no direct or indirect evidence against them and in this regard the evidence of two material witnesses for the prosecution who have been examined so far, copies of whose depositions have been filed by way of supplementary affidavit may be perused. It is further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30117 of 2025(5) dt.18-07-2025 2/2 submitted that both the petitioners are ladies. Petitioner No. 1 is samdhini of the deceased and petitioner no. 2 is the daughter of the deceased, if the prosecution story is believed even then the main allegation is against the husband of the petitioner no. 1 who is in judicial custody.

4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

5. Considering the aforesaid submissions and mainly taking into account the petitioners' custody period and also the fact that in the evidence of two material witnesses of the prosecution, no direct allegation appears against the petitioners showing their involvement in the alleged crime and four more witnesses of the prosecution are to be examined and the release of the petitioners may not adversely affect the prosecution, in my opinion, in these circumstances, both the petitioners now deserve to the privilege of bail. Accordingly, let the petitioners named-above be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court in connection with Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 83 of 2024.

(Shailendra Singh, J) siddharthkr/- U T