Chand Tara Kunwar @ Chand Tara Devi v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56685 of 2015 (3) dt.19-02-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.56685 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -82 Year- 2015 Thana -BHAGWANPUR District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Chand Tara Kunwar @ Chand Tara Devi wife of Jiyut Ram(" Late" wrongly stated), Resident of Village- Khanethi, Post office- Khanethi, Police Station Sonhan, District Kaimur(Bhabua). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pathak For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Hirday Pd. Singh (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking bail in connection Bhagwanpur (Belaw) P.S. Case No. 82 of 2015 registered for offences under sections 364(A)/363/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to S.Tr. No. 284 of 2015/439 of 2015.

In the first information report, allegation has been made that a three years boy was kidnapped for ransom where the names of Dinesh Kumar, Mahesh Kumar and Manoj Ram have been taken to commit this offence. It has been alleged that boy was taken away by Dinesh Kumar and his brother-in-law, Manoj

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56685 of 2015 (3) dt.19-02-2016 Ram.

The Police came in action and recovered the aforesaid boy from the possession of the present petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the first information report, so much so that she is about 60 years old and is not involved in this kidnapping but the boy was left to her, cannot be a basis to indicate her involvement in the aforesaid incident. Admittedly the boy was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present. Accordingly, this petition is rejected.

The court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T