Lalita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80657 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2023 Thana- CHORAUT District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Lalita Devi Wife of Biltu Mandal @ Viltu Mandal R/O Vill.- Barri Behta, P.O.- Barri Behta, P.S.- Chouraut, Dist.- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Mala Devi Wife of Pankaj Chaudhary R/O Vill.- Barri Behta, P.O.- Barri Behta, P.S.- Chouraut, Dist.- Sitamarhi.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr.Amit Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 03-01-2025

1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has renewed her prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with Choraut P.S. Case no. 16 of 2023 registered under sections 366A, 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code and section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that her daughter who had gone to attend the coaching class did not return. Inspite of the search she was not to be found. It subsequently transpired that six accused persons including the petitioner herein had taken her away and may have got her involved in prostitution.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80657 of 2024(3) dt.03-01-2025 2/2 dated 21.3.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 1099 of 2024. Inspite of the petitioner being a lady and being in custody since 1.5.2023 only one witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and there is no chance of the trial concluding in the near future. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial and she has no criminal antecedent.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. A report was called for from the learned trial Court. As per the report received contained in letter dated 16.12.2024, the case is pending for prosecution evidence.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R, the allegations against the petitioner having been supported by the minor victim in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C and trial having commenced in the learned trial Court, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

8. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Partha Sarthy, J) Harsh/- U T