Bimla Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.60672 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -98 Year- 2017 Thana -SIKANDARA District- JAMUI ====================================================== Bimla Devi wife of Suresh Mehta resident of village Nawadih, P.S. Sikandra, District Jamui.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 23-01-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No. 98 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the accused persons is that they have complicity in killing the son of the informant and trying to dispose off the dead body.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is neither any direct allegation nor any circumstantial evidence, as would be apparent from the case diary to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a clean antecedent and her husband has already been granted

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60672 of 2017 (3) dt.23-01-2018 2/2 regular bail by this Court by an order dated 14.11.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 48591 of 2017.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the, I deem it fit and proper to enlarge the petitioner herein on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Jamui in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No. 98 of 2017 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the outset that Annexure-2 which is the injury report has been wrongly annexed by his clerk instead of postmortem report of the present case.

It is accordingly directed that Annexure-2 may deemed to have been deleted from the record.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U T