Navita Kumar @ Vinita Kumar @ Navita Kumari @ Vinita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3840 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-608 Year-2021 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.

Navita Kumar @ Vinita Kumar @ Navita Kumari @ Vinita Kumari, Daughter of Dayanand Chourasiya @ Dayaram Chourasiya, Resident of Village - Barahara, Police Station - Gogri, District - Khagaria 2.

Indra Devi, Wife of Dayanand Chourasiya @ Dayaram Chourasia, Resident of Village - Barahara, Police Station - Gogri, District - Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-02-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Gogri P.S. Case No. 608/2021 dated 27.12.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Sections 302 and 201 of IPC were added.

3. The main submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners are that this is second attempt of the petitioners to get the relief of regular bail as their earlier bail prayer was rejected by this Bench vide order dated 13.02.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 43156/2022 with giving them a liberty to renew their bail prayer after six months, if no progress is made in their trial in the said period and in the light of the said liberty, they have again

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3840 of 2024(2) dt.09-02-2024 2/2 come before this Court mainly on the grounds that they are married women and have been languishing in jail since 29.12.2021 and out of 10 (ten) prosecution's witnesses only 3 (three) prosecution's witnesses have been examined so far which shows prosecution's lingering attitude in producing and examining the prosecution's witnesses. Further submissions are that the petitioners were made accused in the present case mainly on the basis of suspicion and no one had claimed to have seen the petitioners committing the alleged offence of murder.

4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer.

5. Considering the above submissions and mainly taking into account the petitioners' custody period and also slowness of the prosecution in producing and examining the prosecution's witnesses before the trial court as submitted above, in my opinion, the petitioners now deserve to the privilege of bail. Accordingly, let both the petitioners named-above be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in connection with Gogri P.S. Case No. 608/2021.

(Shailendra Singh, J) annu/- U T