Savitri Devi @ Sugan Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71452 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2022 Thana- RAUTA District- Purnia ====================================================== SAVITRI DEVI @ SUGAN DEVI W/O Late Poshit Kumar Das R/O VillageCharakpara, P.S- Rauta, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Indiwar Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 05-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner along with another is of killing the son of the informant namely, Poshit Kumar Das by pressing his throat through rope.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. She has committed no offence. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased and informant is father-in-law of the petitioner. She is languishing in judicial custody since 21.04.2022.

Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR and there

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71452 of 2022(4) dt.05-07-2023 2/2 is specific allegation against the petitioner and another is that they pressing throat of the informant's son through rope, due to which he died. As per Postmortem report, the doctor opined that death was caused by Asphyxia due to strangulation, which corroborates the prosecution case. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case and the petitioner has also confessed about her guilt.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within its stipulated time, which is mentioned in its report. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) arish/- U T