Munni Devi @ Muni Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.14068 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -178 Year- 2014 Thana -GUTHNI District- SIWAN ======================================================
1. MUNNI DEVI @ MUNI DEVI wife of Late Rudal Turha, Resident of village- Guthani, P.S. Guthani, District- Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhuranand Jha (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Guthani P.S. Case No. 178 of 2014 registered for the offence punishable under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code. First Information Report is against un-known with allegation that Krishna, five years old son of the informant became traceless and thereafter, ransom of Rs. five Lac was demanded through mobile no. 9565020320.
Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report, in the confessional statement of Mantosh Turha, who is the son of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner has transpired. Even if, confessional statement of Mantosh Turha is taken to be true then also the only allegation against the petitioner is of conspiracy and further Mantosh Turha has already been allowed bail vide Cri.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14068 of 2016 (3) dt.12-05-2016 2/2 Misc. No. 1748 of 2016 and similarly situated Santosh Turha and Mohit Tiwary have also been allowed regular bail by another coordinate Benches of this Court. The learned APP submits that the hand of the petitioner has also transpired in making conspiracy to kill the son of the informant after kidnapping.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that other co-accused have been allowed bail and, as such, the petitioner, above named, is also directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Siwan in connection with Guthani P.S. Case No. 178 of 2014 subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on her part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U T