Kari Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55179 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2019 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda ====================================================== KARI DEVI Wife of Rudal Gope Resident of Village - Birnawan, P.S.- Wena, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rina Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 03-09-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Chandi(Wena) P.S. Case No.98 of 2019 registered under Sections 328, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The widow of the deceased alleged that Subodh @ Golu came to her house and took her husband, Gopal Prasad with him. At about 7.00 in the night, her husband returned. Her husband was restless and he felt vomiting tendency. Her husband disclosed that Subodh @ Golu, Kailu, Jyoti, Kari Devi(the petitioner), Randhir Kumar(brother-in-law of Golu) assaulted him and forcibly administered him poison. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that informant did not disclose that Golu took the deceased to his house. Petitioner is mother of Golu. It is further submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55179 of 2019(2) dt.03-09-2019 2/2 from perusal of post-mortem report, only abrasion was found which cannot be the cause of death. The viscera of the deceased was preserved and sent to F.S.L. It is submitted that there is nothing on record which show the implication of the petitioner in the case but all the family members of Golu have been made accused in the case.

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It appears from perusal of the F.I.R. itself that the deceased who was feeling restless disclosed before his wife that petitioner and other accused persons assaulted him and forcibly poisoned him. Consequently, the deceased died. The death of deceased appears to be on account of poisoning. Taking into consideration the fact that deceased himself disclosed the name of the petitioner as one of the person who administered him poison resulting death of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

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