Suki Bai @ Sukho Bai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35153 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2020 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Suki Bai @ Sukho Bai, Female, aged about 49 years, W/o Shri Pushkar Sao @ Pushkar 2.

Pushkar Sao @ Pushkar, Male, aged about 49 years, Son of Late Dhanraj Sahu @ Dhanaji Sahu, both residents of Mohalla- Sabina Rudal, P.S.- Hiranbhangri, District- Udaipur (Rajasthan).

3.

Sushila Bai @ Sushila Sahu, Female, aged about 63 years, Wife of Shri Pyara Chand Teli, Resident of Mohalla- Maharaj Ki Kheri, Balabnagar, P.S.- Dobok, District- Udaipur (Rajasthan).

4.

Manju Sao @ Manju Sahu, Female, aged about 34 years, Wife of Shri Jaggu Sao @ Jagdish Chandra Sahu, Resident of Mohalla- Krishna Colony 65, Sabina, P.S.- Hiranbhangri, District- Udaipur (Rajasthan). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Udbhav, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 22-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Sherghati P.S. Case No. 318 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 372, 373/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in brief is that one Kanchan Devi lodged a fardbeyan on 04.07.2020 at 14.10 hours before Mahila police stating therein, inter alia, that about 10 years back she was married with one Ritesh Yadav but subsequently, differences cropped up and she separated from her husband and from the said lock, she has one son and one daughter aged about 8 years and 7 years respectively. By doing household work she

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35153 of 2020(3) dt.22-01-2021 2/3 was maintaining her children. She became acquainted with Manju Devi, wife of Karun Kant Sharma of Jharia and she disclosed her difficulty in getting house on rent and is thinking to marry. Manju Devi told her on 30.06.2020 that her daughter Pinki Kumari, wife of Lalit Kumar is residing at village Palgaon, Udaipur and her devar Mukesh is to marry and if she desires she will initiate the talks. Keeping faith on Manju Devi, she asked to negotiate on 03.072020. Manju Devi called her at J.K. Hotel to meet the boy and his family members and she went to meet them at 12 and met the boy Dilip Sao, son of Pushkar Sao of village Sabina and his family members, i.e.

father Pushkar Sao, mother Suki Bai, bua Sushil Sahu and Narayani, sister Manju Sahu, Kailash Sao and Manju Devi introduced them. After talking with the boy Dilip Sao, she agreed for marriage on which they stated that they will perform marriage immediately but she protested for the same day marriage and she stated that she will disclose this fact firstly to her mother and sister and she will bring her children and thereafter, she will perform marriage. But all started frightening her. The real fact was that the accused persons have purchased her by the coaccused Manju Devi on consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- and by taking her to Udaipur, they intended to sale her for prostitution. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.

The entire allegation levelled against the petitioners is out and out a false allegation. He further submits that the present informant had started negotiation for her marriage as she is an adult lady and the boy had come firstly alone and when she saw and talked with the boy and agreed for marriage the date of marriage was fixed on 03.07.2020.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35153 of 2020(3) dt.22-01-2021 3/3 further submits that the petitioners are in jail custody since 05.07.2020 and petitioners have got no any criminal antecedent mentioned in paragraph-3 of the bail petition and the petitioners are the in-laws, Bua and Nanad.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the bail petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners be enlarged on bail after framing of charge on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each only with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M., Sherghati (Gaya) in connection with Sherghati P.S. Case No. 318 of 2020. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Nasimul/- U T