Pushpa Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47786 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-993 Year-2023 Thana- KANKARBAG District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
Pushpa Devi, wife of Late Anand Kumar @ Anand Singh, Village- Tajpur Ps-Manear Dist- Patna, C/A- D/15 PC Colony Ps- Kankarbagh Dist- Patna 2.
Ritu Rani D/o- of Late, Anand Kumar @ Anand Singh, wife of Sri Dayanand Singh Village- DC Quin Dhurwa Ps- Dhurwa, Ranchi Jharkhand, C/A- D/15 PC Colony Ps- Kankarbagh Dist- Patna 3.
Rajeev Kumar, son of Late Anand Kumar @ Anand Singh, Village- Tajpur Ps- Maner, Dist- Patna,C/A- D/15 PC Colony Ps- Kankarbagh Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanjeev Kr Sinha, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 13-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.
2. In the present case, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Kankarbag P.S. Case No. 993 of 2023 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, petitioners and another coaccused gave poison to the sister-in-law of the informant in her food, causing her death.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47786 of 2024(4) dt.13-09-2024 2/3 this case. Petitioner no.1, informant and the deceased are wives of three brothers and there is dispute with regard to landed property since 2010. Earlier petitioner no.1 has lodged Kankarbag P.S. Case No. 805 of 2015 against the son of the informant and others. Petitioner no.2 has lodged Kankarbag P.S. Case No. 666 of 2015 against the informant and petitioner no.3 has also lodged a case bearing Kankarbag P.S. Case No. 118 of 2010 against the informant of this case. An informatory petition was also given to the S.H.O., Kankarbag Police Station by petitioner no.3 against the informant side as the petitioners were being threatened with life and false implication in criminal cases. Learned counsel further submits that mother-in-law of petitioner no.
1 executed a Will in favour of petitioner no.3 for the disputed property. In order to grab whole of the property, a number of false cases have been lodged by the informant and her family members including the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are accused in five cases apart from the present case.
5. Learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently oppose the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. Learned APP submits that the viscera was sent for forensic examination and its report shows
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47786 of 2024(4) dt.13-09-2024 3/3 presence of Aluminium Phosphide, commercially known as Celphos and it shows the deceased was administered poison. Learned counsel for the informant submits that few days prior to her death, the deceased gave an application to the S.H.O., Kankarbag Police Station apprehending danger to her life in the hands of the petitioners and co-accused. Learned counsel further submits that the story of execution of Will is false as the motherin-law of the informant and petitioner no.1 has lodged Kankarbag P.S. Case No. 338 of 2012 against the petitioners and other co-accused persons. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner no.1 claiming herself as wife of her deceased younger brother-in-law, withdrew money from the account of the deceased by creating forged document.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the seriousness of allegation against the petitioners, I do not think it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected (Arun Kumar Jha, J) balmukund/- U T