Nitu Devi @ Nitu Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9804 of 2018 (3) dt.14-03-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9804 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -151 Year- 2016 Thana -BIHTA District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Nitu Devi @ Nitu Kumari W/o Ajay @ Ajay Kumar , R/o VillageGouriya Dera, P.S.- Neora O.P. (Bihar) District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nil Kamal For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Sumiran Roy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 14-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S. Tr. No. 679 of 2016 arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No. 151 of 2016 registered under Sections 302, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The brother of the informant is said to have been murdered by slitting his throat by means of knife by some unknown miscreants.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He has been falsely implicated in this case. There is nothing on the record barring the confessional statement of the petitioner which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Co-accused, Namely, Ram Kumar has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2017 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 587 of 2017.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9804 of 2018 (3) dt.14-03-2018 Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that it is the petitioner who was having illicit relation with co-accused, namely, Ram Kumar and she has committed murder of the deceased by slitting his neck by means of knife and dumped the said knife in the well. Earlier bail petition was rejected by this Court on 13.07.2017 with a direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial within four months but trial has not concluded as yet. Four prosecution witnesses and I.O has been examined and the case is likely to be concluded very soon. In the facts and circumstances stated above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, her prayer for bail stands rejected in connection S.Tr. No. 679 of 2016 arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No.

151 of 2016 pending before learned Additional District Judge-II, Danapur. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of production or receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to renew her prayer for bail.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) sushma/- U T