Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49731/2016rejected

Bibi Sarifan @ Sarifan Bibi v. The State Of Bihar

2016-12-23Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49731 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -361 Year- 2016 Thana -KISHANGANJ District- KISANGANJ ======================================================

1. Bibi Sarifan @ Sarifan Bibi, Wife of Md. Saifuddin, Resident of VillageGarden Katta, P.S. Karandiyli, District- Uttar Dinajpur (West Bengal). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 23-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

This is an application for grant of regular bail for offences punishable under Section 364A/34 of Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner's name surfaced in this case only on the basis confessional statement of co-accused, who happens to be the husband of the petitioner, and there is nothing against the petitioner so as to connect her with the present case. It has further been submitted that there is no eye-witness of the place, from where the victims were recovered. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.08.2016 and now the charge-sheet has also been filed in this case.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49731 of 2016 (3) dt.23-12-2016 2/2 Heard learned A.P.P. also. Learned A.P.P. referring to several paragraphs of the case diary, submitted that there are materials against the petitioner in the case diary and, therefore, she does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Having heard both sides. In view of the fact that from perusal of the case diary as well as other records, it appears that petitioner has also played a specific role in the said offence and her complicity cannot be ignored and as such, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner, the privilege of bail as such, the prayer of bail is rejected.

However, petitioner may renew her prayer for bail after framing of charges.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U