Savita Devi @ Sabita Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79297 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2023 Thana- INDUSTRIAL AREA District- Vaishali ====================================================== SAVITA DEVI @ SABITA DEVI W/o Ajeet Narayan Shukla R/o vill - Serukahi, P.S. - Kanti, Distt. - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 07-03-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case no. 121 of 2023 registered under sections 370, 363, 341, 372, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 75, 80 and 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that on receiving a secret information about a gang involved in sale and purchase of children would be coming in the Samrath Family Hotel, it is stated that the police reached there. Seeing the vehicle in question, it was surrounded and the accused persons including the petitioner herein were caught. A child was recovered from their possession.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79297 of 2023(4) dt.07-03-2024 2/2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. She was merely a visitor in the hotel who had come to have tea and was arrested under wrong suspicion. Her case stands on a similar footing to have of co-accused Lablesh Kumar who has been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court. The petitioner is in custody since 22.8.2023 and has no criminal antecedent. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R according to which the petitioner along with others were caught at the place of occurrence along with the child for which the accused did not have any explanation, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Partha Sarthy, J) Harsh/- U T