Rita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75079 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-265 Year-2024 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran ====================================================== Rita Devi Wife of Jagdish Sahani @ Jagdish Chaudhary Resident of VillageSouth Telua Ward No. 06, P.S.- Nautan, Distt.- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Rita Verma, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sitesh Kashyap, Advocate Ms. Bharti Rai, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 140 (1), 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita but, later on, 103 (1) and 238 of the B.N.S. was added.

3. The son of the informant is said to have been killed by miscreants.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. She is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner, who was not named accused in the F.I.R. was made accused in the case during the course of investigation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75079 of 2024(4) dt.21-02-2025 2/2 on assertion of the police that this petitioner confessed her involvement in committing murder of Nikhil Kumar and on her disclosure the dead body was recovered, rather the fact of the matter is that petitioner has not confessed before the police about her guilt but the police has claimed about involvement of the petitioner in commission of the murder of Nikhil Kumar. In fact, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the open field by the police. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 24.07.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that considering the nature of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve bail.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew her prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T