Patna High CourtCR. MISC./81408/2024bail rejected

Aarti Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2024-12-04Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81408 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-333 Year-2024 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda ====================================================== Aarti Devi Wife of Sharawan Ram Resident of Village- Badauni, P.S.- Parwalpur, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Anil Kumar No. I, Advocate.

For the State :

Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Noor Sarai P.S. Case No. 333 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per allegation, the petitioner along with her husband and sister-in-law has committed murder of the victim lady.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the dead-body of the alleged victim was putrified and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. He further submits that there is no connecting

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81408 of 2024(2) dt.04-12-2024 2/2 evidence against the petitioner.

5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.

6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

7. However, Ld. APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail submitting that the alleged offence is serious in nature and the case is still at the stage of investigation. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

9. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Jitendra Kumar, J) S.Ali/- U T