← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./43171/2025partly allowed disposal

Meena Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-27Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43171 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2025 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== 1.

Meena Devi W/o Lakshman paswan R/o Village-Mahadevpur P.S- Amarpur, District Banka 2.

Gunjan Paswan S/o Lakshman Paswan R/o Village Mahadevpur, P.SAmarpur District- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Brij Nandan Prasad, Adv.

For the informant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 55 of 2025 dated 27.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable u/s 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant's sister was married to Gunjan Paswan (petitioner no. 2) and after some time, Gunjan Paswan developed illicit relationship with Bina Devi (bhavi of the petitioner) and due to that dispute arose into the family and it led to the filing of criminal case in Banka police station. In that case, Laxman Paswan (father-in-law of the

2/4 deceased) was sent to jail due to that the accused persons used to threaten the deceased. On 14.01.2025, the matter was compromised between the parties but thereafter, the accused persons started assaulting the informant's sister and on 25.01.2025, Rupesh Paswan (brother-in-law of the deceased) informed the informant that his sister was in serious condition and when they reached the spot, the informant's sister was found dead. It is further alleged that all the accused persons have killed the deceased and after killing her, they have hanged her body.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The occurrence took place on 25.01.2025 and police was informed on 27.01.2025 after a delay of two days without any explanation. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the mother-in-law and the petitioner no. 2 is the husband of the deceased and they have no concern with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is a lady. The petitioners have clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioners are in custody since 01.02.2025 and 28.01.2025 respectively.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for

3/4 the informant have opposed the bail petition of the petitioners and submitted that the petitioner no. 2 is the husband of the deceased. There is direct allegation against the petitioners that they killed the deceased and after killing her, they have hanged her body. As per the impugned order, the witnesses in para nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 of the case diary, have supported the prosecution case. As per the post-mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death is asphyxia due to injury caused by hanging.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody and the petitioner no. 1 is a lady, the petitioner no. 1 namely, Meena Devi, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Banka in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 55 of 2025.

7. The application stands allowed with regard to the petitioner no.1 namely, Meena Devi.

8. So far as, the petitioner nos. 2 namely, Gunjan Paswan is concerned, considering the heinous nature of allegation made against him in the F.I.R., I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail.

10. Accordingly, the application with regard to the petitioner no.2 namely, Gunjan Paswan stands rejected.

4/4

9. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner no. 2 and conclude the same at the earliest. (Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Gautam/- U T