Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48025/2018disposal with observation

Parwati Devi @ Parwatiya Devi @ Kewli Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2018-09-27Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48025 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -157 Year- 2017 Thana -CHANDAN District- BANKA ======================================================

1. Parwati Devi @ Parwatiya Devi @ Kewli Devi, Wife of Khublal Ray, Resident of Village- Padariya, P.S.- Chandan (OP- Anandpur) DistrictBanka. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Saran Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-09-2018 The petitioner is in custody since 10.10.2017 in connection with Chandan/Anandpur P.S. Case No. 157 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 121, 121(A), 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3⁄4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 U.A.P. Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act.

Allegation as per F.I.R. is that police received information that a naxalite is coming in the village and on that information police raided the village and arrested the petitioner, who disclosed Naxal community has given explosive substance which she has kept in a ditch near Katahar river and on that information, the explosive substances were recovered. Impugned order further shows that the report shows that the explosive

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48025 of 2018 (3) dt.27-09-2018 2/2 substance was examined by the expert and the substance contained Potassium Chlorate mixed with arsenic Sulphide, which are used for preparation of bomb.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that she has falsely been implicated in this case and nothing has been recovered from her possession. The petitioner is in custody since 10.10.2017.

Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude the same within a period of 9 months. If not concluded and there is no laches on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the learned Trial Court itself.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/Amjad/- U T