Minchu Kumari And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21387 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -215 Year- 2016 Thana -PIPRA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Minchu Kumari, Daughter of Harendra Rai

2. Maya Devi, Wife of Harendra Rai, Both are resident of Village- Hasan Pur Yado Tola, P.S. Pipra, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ataur Rahman (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 04-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 215 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(b)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, Ashok Kumar the younger brother of the informant was killed in the house of the petitioner after cutting his neck.

Submission is of false implication and that petitioner no.1 is unmarried girl whereas petitioner no.2 is the mother of the petitioner no.1, without any cause they have been implicated in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21387 of 2017 (3) dt.04-07-2017 2/2 this case, due information was given to the family members after murder of deceased and the informant implicated the petitioners and other after making false allegation, there is no cogent and legal materials against the petitioners and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

The learned A.P.P. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail by submitting that the witnesses have supported the allegation and further Harendra Ram has confessed his guilt stating the name of the petitioners vide para 23 of the case diary and, as such, the petitioners do not deserve bail.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the materials collected during investigation, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest to them and accordingly their such prayer stands rejected in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 215 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Motihari, East Champaran.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T