Savitri Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42033 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -320 Year- 2016 Thana -DARIYAPUR District- SARAN ====================================================== Savitri Devi, Wife of Rajendra Singh, Resident of Village-Akbarpur, Police Station-Dariyapur, District-Saran at Chapra.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. S.M. Rahman, APP For the Informant : Mr. Snajay Kr. Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-12-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dariyapur P.S. Case No. 320 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that her sautan, namely, Sunaina Devi, informed her that her son, namely, Deepak Kumar, had gone to her house, but said Deepak did not reach the parental house of the informant. The husband of the informant disclosed on the next day that said Deepak was killed and his dead-body was thrown near the villageBhairopur.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42033 of 2017 (3) dt.19-12-2017 2/3 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report. During course of investigation, the name of the petitioner figured in the confessional statement of Sunaina Devi. Save and except the confession of Sunaina Devi, the sautan of the informant, there is no other tangible material to show the involvement of the petitioner. The petitioner is a lady.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and have submitted that the petitioner is the kingpin. He took money from said Sunaina Devi to kill the son of her sautan. The petitioner called Dinesh Kumar, Ravi Kumar and Sushant Kumar, who happens to be the friends of Munna Kumar Singh, the son of the petitioner. They all killed Deepak Kumar, the son of the informant and threw his dead-body. During course of investigation, it has also come that all the accused persons were together at the time of occurrence.

Having considered the facts aforesaid and nature of allegations made against the petitioner that it was the petitioner, who got the son of the informant killed by the friends of her son after receiving money, I am not inclined

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42033 of 2017 (3) dt.19-12-2017 3/3 to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on anticipatory bail. The same is, accordingly, rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Praveen-II/- U T