Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81674 of 2024 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30344 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2024 Thana- PUNAURA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Sunita Devi W/o Late Ram Vivek Yadav R/o Village- Chak Mahila, Ward No. 21, P.S- Punaura, Distt.- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Madhubala Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-11-2024 Heard Ms. Madhubala Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present modification application has been filed for modifying the order dated 26.07.2024.

3. By the order dated 26.07.2024, the petitioner was granted bail with the following conditions :- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81674 of 2024(2) dt.26-11-2024 2/3 ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to communication gap on the basis of the information furnished by the Pairvikar, it was stated in para-3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal history.

5. The Court also noticed Section 362 of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows :- "362 - Court not to alter judgment. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81674 of 2024(2) dt.26-11-2024 3/3

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant modification petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T