Laila Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21737 of 2016 (3) dt.15-07-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21737 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -44 Year- 2016 Thana -TARAIYA District- SARAN ======================================================

1. Laila Khatoon Wife of Chand Mohammad resident of village - Pokhrera, P.S. Taraiyan, District - Saran .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Chand Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Taraiyan P.S. Case No. 44 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code in which Section 302 IPC was added later on. Allegedly, the petitioner and other FIR named accused persons started assaulting Ainul Khatoon, the informant, and after sprinkling kerosene oil burnt her. She was brought for treatment in the hospital but she died after three days.

Submission is of false implication and that in the first information report there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, allegations are general and omnibus in nature. During investigation place of occurrence has been changed, the petitioner is a lady and is suffering in custody since 29.02.2016 having no

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21737 of 2016 (3) dt.15-07-2016 criminal antecedent.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that during investigation witness Sabnam Kumari, the daughter of the deceased, has stated that this petitioner threw the burnt matchstick on the body.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, at present, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, her such prayer stands rejected.

However, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may be at liberty to renew her prayer of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T