Patna High CourtCR. MISC./74692/2018dismissed

Sugandhi Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2019-01-21Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.74692 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-314 Year-2018 Thana- DHAKA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Sugandhi Devi Wife of Jeetu Sah @ Jitu Sah, Resident of Village- Siswa Mangal, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 21-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 304B,34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Dhaka (Pachpakari) P.S. Case No. 314 of 2018.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the accusations are general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner was living separately from the other members of the family and had not demanded dowry. Police has found the case to be true under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned APP relies on the case diary to submit that one of the witnesses, namely, Bigan Sah in paragraph-10 has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.74692 of 2018(3) dt.21-01-2019 2/2 stated that at the time of occurrence, the husband and father-inlaw of the deceased had gone out for earning their livelihood and only the petitioner and Nanad of the deceased were at home working in the field. There is no record of any rope etc. found at the place of occurrence to support the theory of suicide by hanging. The body of the deceased was found at chatai on the floor.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence as well as the doubtful statement of the petitioner where she was living separately in the view of the statement of witness Bigan Sah, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that if the petitioner moves for regular bail before the Court below, the same shall be considered on its own merits.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar/ U T