Sanju Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32291 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -195 Year- 2015 Thana -PATAHI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Sanju Devi Wife of Prabhu Raut, resident of Village- Bela Baiju, P.SPatahi, District- East Champaran, Motihari. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Prashant Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364/302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Diary in this case was called for earlier, which has, since been received.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that save and except the extra confessional statement made before the police by one Amrendra Pandey, there is no material on record to connect the present petitioner with the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was murdered and thrown in a canal, but at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was in Delhi and has been residing in Delhi since long with her

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32291 of 2016 (3) dt.25-10-2016 P2/3 family members. Only because, one Sujit Kumar has stated that he heard the petitioner speaking to one Satyendra Raut on phone that the work should be done, there is no other further material in the case diary to implicate the complicity of the present petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State after perusal of the case diary submits that the petitioner's name has come during the course of investigation as the immediate neighbour has heard the petitioner speaking on phone. It is further submitted that the confessional statement also indicates the complicity of the present petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, it appears that there is no cogent material in the case diary to indicate the complicity of the present. As such, let the petitioner abovenamed, in the event of her arrest / surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 8, Motihari in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 195/2015, subject to the conditions as laid

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32291 of 2016 (3) dt.25-10-2016 P3/3 down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C.

(Anjana Mishra, J) Saif/- U T