Patna High CourtCR. MISC./63766/2019rejected

Muskan Devi @ Reena Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2020-02-17Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63766 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2018 Thana- DARBHANGA RAIL P.S. DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== 1.

MUSKAN DEVI @ REENA DEVI Wife of Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Mahto Resident of Village-Kabar Chak, P.S.-Muffasil, Darbhanga, DistrictDarbhanga. 2.

Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Mahato Son of Mahendra Kushwaha @ Mahendra Mahto Resident of Village-Kabar Chak, P.S.-Muffasil, Darbhanga, DistrictDarbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Deepak Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rabindra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 17-02-2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.

Petitioners seek bail in connection with Darbhanga Rail P.S. Case No. 261 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under sections 363(4)b, 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of their enemies. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of this petitioner. Petitioner has not committed any offence. The victim has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63766 of 2019(3) dt.17-02-2020 2/2 already been recovered.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that although petitioners are not named in the first information, however, during investigation materials have come showing their direct involvement in the alleged crime, and as such, petitioners do not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail. Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T