Bibha Devi v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26505 of 2015 (4) dt.12-10-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26505 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -313 Year- 2010 Thana -SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Bibha Devi Wife of Late Suresh Ram Resident of Village - Mohanpur Police Station - Samastipur (Mufassil), District - Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 12-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Samastipur (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 313 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the petitioner being daughter-in-law served the food to the informant, his sons, daughter and wife but the petitioner did not take the meal on the ground that she is not feeling well and thereafter all started feeling uneasiness. Suresh Ram, Gandhi Ram and Pinki Kumari died at once and thereafter, the informant, his wife and Nidhi Kumari were brought to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur where the condition of Raj Kumari Devi is serious. It is claimed that the petitioner after mixing poisonous

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26505 of 2015 (4) dt.12-10-2015 substance in the meal served the same causing death of three persons at once.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and she is newly wedded wife and she has been made victim of circumstances. In the post mortem report no definite opinion for cause of death has been given and viscera was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for test. No one has seen the petitioner mixing poison with the meal and she is suffering in custody since 08.06.2010 and, as such, she deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP opposes by submitting that trial is in progress and it is likely to be concluded.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegations attributed against the petitioner serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, her such prayer stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within four months, by taking all the positive steps for securing presence of rest witnesses.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T