Laichi Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72263 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2021 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Laichi Devi W/o Raj Kumar Chaurasiya Resident of Village - Lauwa Kala Terighat Bazar, P.s.- Baniyapur, Distt.- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shaheen Begum, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 17-10-2022 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 237 of 2021, lodged under Sections 366(A), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, the informant has made allegation that the accused persons has called his daughter in the name of showing different dresses which they alleged to purchase for their daughter. When the daughter of informant not returned up to 9 pm, thereafter they started searching and then made allegation against the accused persons that they have kidnapped the daughter of informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's family and informant's family are next door

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72263 of 2021(3) dt.17-10-2022 2/2 neighbourers. He further submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He also submits that petitioner is a gentle lady and there is no reason as to why she commit such act. He further submits that there is a land dispute between the families but nothing on record which shows that there is land dispute exist between them. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2021 and her antecedent is clean.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that after kidnapping the alleged victim was recovered and categorically recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., by which the involvement of present petitioner transpires in the commission of offence.

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, therefore, her bail application is hereby rejected. Liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner to move further for bail after four months of framing of charge. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) ritik/- U T