Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7370 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -443 Year- 2014 Thana -DANAPUR District- PATNA ====================================================== Sunita Devi wife of Satyendra Singh @ Satish Singh, resident of Gonpura, P.S. - PhulwariSharif, District - Patna, at present residing at Chitrakut Nagar, Road no. 3, A/5, P.S. - Danapur, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjit Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 11-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking bail in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 443 of 2014 registered for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the allegation of the informant that he had received a telephonic call from his house that his son had died and his wife and daughter were weeping. Allegation has been made that his son was found dead at the roof of the stair. Allegation has been made that the son of the informant had developed illicit relationship with the present petitioner and that was the cause of the death of the victim. From the case diary it appears that the husband and the son of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7370 of 2016 (4) dt.11-04-2016 2/2 present petitioner were opposing illicit relationship of petitioner with deceased.

In the Post Mortem report, it has been found that the victim had died on account of asphyxia i.e. by strangulation. As per the counsel for the petitioner, admittedly there is an allegation against the petitioner to have developed illicit relationship with the victim. If that be so, there is remote chance of an involvement of the petitioner, as she would not like to kill the victim.

The counsel for the informant submits that the husband and the son of the present petitioner have not been arrested up till now, that cannot be ground for refusal of granting the bail of the present petitioner.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on her furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur (Patna) in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 443 of 2014. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T