Lilavti Devi @ Lilavati Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68196 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-467 Year-2021 Thana- KHAIRA District- Jamui ====================================================== Lilavti Devi @ Lilavati Devi Wife of Mukesh Sah Village- Mogochaspri, P. S. - Khaira, District- Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-12-2024 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Khaira P.S. Case No. 467 of 2021, F.I.R. dated 20.12.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, informant got a secret information that a dead body was found near Sukhna river and the neck of the body was cut with a sharp edged weapon and various parts of the body was also attacked by means of knife.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68196 of 2024(3) dt.13-12-2024 2/2 F.I.R. He further submits that name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of the confessional statement of the coaccused, namely, Hare Ram Singh and except the confessional statement of the co-accused, no other material has come during investigation to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it has come during investigation in paragraph nos. 39, 59 and 79 of the case diary which suggests that the petitioner was involved in the crime in question and apart from that it has also come during investigation in paragraph nos. 65 to 69 of the case diary which shows the CDR location of the petitioner and suggests that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Khaira P.S. Case No. 467 of 2021 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T