Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8058/2017rejected

Panch Kumari Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-21Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8058 of 2017 (3) dt.21-03-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8058 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -307 Year- 2016 Thana -ARA MUFFSIL District- BHOJPUR ======================================================

1. Panch Kumari Devi, W/o Suresh Pandit

2. Shaymlal Pandit, S/o Suresh Pandit

3. Sunti Kuar, W/o Late Ramawadh Pandit All are Resident of VillageBarauli, Police Station- Ara Muffasil, District- Bhojpur at Ara. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vipin Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Prem Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 21-03-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Ara Muffasil Police Station Case No. 307 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners happen to be close relative of the husband of the deceased have falsely been implicated in this case. In fact, the petitioners are living separately since 4 years from the husband of the deceased. They have no concern with the matrimonial dispute between the husband and the deceased. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8058 of 2017 (3) dt.21-03-2017 petitioners are of clean antecedents. Hence, the petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P. for the state has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. The prosecution version has been supported by the witnesses, which is evident from paragraphs 4, 5, 8 and 22 of the case diary Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of these petitioners are rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T