Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20929 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -35 Year- 2015 Thana -DIGHA District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Sunita Devi. Wife of Ramnandan Das. Resident of Mohalla - Kurji Vikash Nagar, P.S.- Digha, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. L.K.Sharma(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the informant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The widow of deceased made allegation that her husband on being called by the petitioner went to her house but he did not return. The informant got information that her husband was killed by the petitioner and others. On search she went there and saw dead body of her husband.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. The witnesses have stated that they saw the husband of the petitioner chasing the deceased with

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20929 of 2015 (3) dt.19-08-2015 2/2 blood stained knife in his hand but nobody saw the petitioner assaulting the deceased. The post mortem report does not show any injury caused by knife and incised wounds cannot be said to be caused by knife.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant submits that witnesses have very categorically stated that husband and wife, the petitioner, inflicted knife blow and at some distance from the house of petitioner the witnesses also saw the husband of the petitioner chasing the deceased. Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T