Urmila Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.79725 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-375 Year-2018 Thana- HILSA DistrictNalanda ====================================================== Urmila Devi Wife of Vinod Yadav Resident of Village- Manpur, P.S. Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

Mr.Sri Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 25-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26/35 of the Arms Act registered in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 375 of 2018.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated merely because she happens to be the wife of Vinod Yadav from whose house one country made pistol and one live cartridge have allegedly been recovered. It is submitted that even according to the F.I.R. Shyam Prasad received gun shot injury and the informant saw one person fleeing away with the country made pistol in his hand and was later identified as the said Vinod Yadav. The petitioner is a lady and claims clean antecedents.

4. Be that as it may, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of the petitioner's arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, let the above

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.79725 of 2018(2) dt.25-01-2019 2/2 named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 375 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C., and also subject to the following further conditions: (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make herself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (iv) The petitioner shall be well represented in Court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned. (Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T