Sandhya Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32169 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2020 Thana- SAHAJITPUR District- Saran ====================================================== SANDHYA DEVI D/o Bamdeo Chaudhur Resident of Village-Moujegaon, P.S.-Sahajitpur, District-Saran (Chapra).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 25-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 03.03.2020 in connection with Sahajitpurt P.S. Case No. 18 of 2020 for the alleged offences under Section 302, 120(B) and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with the alleged murder of the informant's son, Mithilesh Kumar. It is submitted that there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence and the petitioner, wife of the deceased, has been made accused merely on suspicion. There was no dispute between the petitioner and the deceased after their marriage. The petitioner has already suffered custody of about 10 months. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Learned APP appears and opposes the petition for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32169 of 2020(3) dt.25-01-2021 2/2 bail and submits that there is adequate material against the petitioner in the case diary. He invites reference to paragraph 8 thereof wherein it has been noted that the deceased was burnt by sprinkling petrol owing to dispute with the petitioner and her family members. He further invites reference to paragraph 8 to 12 of the case diary in which statements of the witnesses have been recorded to support the prosecution case.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed.

6. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) HR/- U T