Rima Devi @ Anita Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.50203 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -94 Year- 2016 Thana -PATAHI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================
1. Rima Devi @ Anita Devi Wife of Samarjeet Mehtar resident of village - Jihuli, Police Station Patahi, District East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Meena Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 22-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 13.07.2016 in connection with Patahi P. S. Case No. 94 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case as lodged by the informant is that when she along with her husband ( deceased) were returning home from the field, co-accused including the petitioner intercepted her husband and inflicted Fasuli blow on the head of the deceased as well as other co-accused persons also assaulted due to which the husband of the informant succumbed to injuries.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50203 of 2016 (3) dt.22-12-2016 2/2 It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is innocent and has no criminal history and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case out of enmity as earlier when the deceased husband tried to commit rape on her and also injured her the petitioner had lodged Mahila P. S. Case No. 35 of 2016 on 10.07.2016, prior to the institution of the present case. It has further been submitted that no overt act has been committed by the petitioner and no seizure list has been prepared.
However, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the petitioner is named in the First Information Report and the informant is an eye witness to the alleged occurrence and many of the witnesses of case diary has supported the prosecution case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage.
This bail application is, accordingly, rejected. (Nilu Agrawal, J) Sudha/- U T