Rambha Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68321 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2021 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga ====================================================== RAMBHA DEVI Wife of Birendra Paswan Resident of village - Brahampur, P.S.- Kamtaul, District - Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 26-07-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Kamtaul P.S.Case No. 121 of 2021.

As per allegation, the petitioner, her husband Birendra Paswan, Subha Devi and Sikander Paswan entered into the house of the informant and badly assaulted her husband resulting in his death. The reason behind the occurrence is that the petitioner and her family members were accused in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and they suspected that the informant and her family members had given information to the police about their indulgence in the said case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68321 of 2021(2) dt.26-07-2022 2/2 that she is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The informant is the eye-witness. Her husband was beaten to death at the hands of the petitioner and her family members before her eyes. The witnesses in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the case diary have supported the occurrence and in the supervision note the case was found true against the petitioner and other accused persons.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that as per the post mortem report the deceased had suffered injuries on his person.

In view of aforesaid allegation, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Her prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T