Patna High CourtCR. MISC./65288/2022bail rejected

Rinku Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2023-04-26Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65288 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2022 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Rinku Devi, Wife of Vikash Kumar, Resident of village - Akorhi (Barki), P.S.- Karghar (Barahari), District - Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-04-2023

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

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Karghar (Barahari O.P.) P.S. Case No. 214 of 2022 dated 15.06.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution, an unidentified dead body was found floating in a well of the village of petitioner which was later identified as the victim of this case.

4. The main submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner is a woman and has been languishing in jail since 08.08.2022 and against her there is no direct evidence and only suspicion was raised against her in connection with the murder of the deceased, who happened to be the sister of the husband of the petitioner and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65288 of 2022(4) dt.26-04-2023 2/2 there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and petitioner is not named in the FIR.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer.

6. Heard both the side and perused the FIR and case diary of this case. Though, in the present matter there is no direct evidence against the petitioner but as per the statement of father-in-law of this petitioner recorded by him under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. there was tense relation between the petitioner and the deceased on account of some ornaments and the victim's dead body was found in a well and as per prosecution she was murdered by strangulation. Having considered the seriousness of the allegation appearing against the petitioner, in the opinion of this court, the petitioner does not deserve to the privilege of bail. Accordingly, her bail prayer stands rejected.

7. Petitioner may renew her bail prayer after one year, if any significant progress is not made in her trial by the trial court in the said period.

(Shailendra Singh, J) Rajiv/- U T