Panna Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83713 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-479 Year-2024 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Panna Devi W/O Jangbahadur Sahni Resident of Village- Madhopur, Ward No.- 05, P.S- Majhaulia, District- West Champaran. 2.

Ranjit Sahni S/O Jangbahadur Sahni Resident of Village- Madhopur, Ward No.- 05, P.S- Majhaulia, District- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mayank Mohan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Avinash Raj, Advocate Mr. Sachida Nand Rai, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioners have prayed for grant of bail in connection with Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 479 of 2024 registered under sections 140(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the sister of the informant namely Rabdi Devi (Deceased) was married to one Ramayan Sahni. It is further alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by husband and in-laws. The name of these petitioners is also there. It is also alleged that the relation between the husband and wife was strained and Rabdi Devi has also filed a maintenance case. It is further alleged that Ramayan Sahni was talking terms with Rabdi and he has started giving her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83713 of 2024(3) dt.05-02-2025 2/3 maintenance. On 19.07.2024 when the informant called his sister, her mobile number was switched off when he came to the matrimonial house of his sister, he was informed that Rabdi Devi has gone to Chapwa but she has not returned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner are innocent and have committed no offence. They have falsely been implicated in this case. Further submitted that petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is brotherin-law. From perusal of the para-7 of the diary it will transpire that petitioner Ranjeet Sahni was separate from deceased. They are languishing in judicial custody since 28.07.2024.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. In this case petitioner Ranjeet Sahni has given his confessional statement and it is also clear that on his identification, the dead body of the informant's sister was recovered. It is submitted that though, there is no any direct evidence against petitioner Ranjit Sahni but as dead body has recovered on his identification. He does not deserve bail.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner no.2, namely, Ranjit Sahni, hence his prayer for bail stands rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83713 of 2024(3) dt.05-02-2025 3/3

7. As far as petitioner No.1, namely, Panna Devi is concerned, there is no allegation against her. As such, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner No.1, namely, Panna Devi. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 479 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Bettiah, West Champaran.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Shubham/- U T