Sonam Marandi @ Talo Dee @ Budhni v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1689 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2017 Thana- CHANAN District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Sonam Marandi @ Talo Dee @ Budhni Wife of Rakesh Hembram Resident of Village Gordhoba PS Chanan District Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Sanyukta Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 28-02-2025
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with Chanan P.S. Case No.41 of 2017, registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 427, 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Sections 4 and 40 of the Minor Mineral Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage Rule, 2003 and Sections 16, 18B and 20 of the U.A.P. Act, 1967.
3. The case of the prosecution is that more than 22 persons had attacked the persons engaged in mining sand and had burnt JCB Trucks, Tractors, Motorcycles etc. and subsequently when the Police had come, it was found that the driver of the JCB had been shot dead.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1689 of 2025(3) dt.28-02-2025 2/3
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is languishing in custody since 12.08.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons and the petitioner has been roped in the present case merely on suspicion. It is further submitted that no material has come in the case diary to suggest that the petitioner had killed the driver of the JCB. It is also submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail/anticipatory bail, vide orders dated 21.02.2018 and 30.03.2018, passed in Cr.Misc. No.5536 of 2018 and Cr.Misc. No.6054 of 2018, respectively.
5. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has though vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the materials available on record as also those available in the case diary, this Court finds that minuscule evidence is available in the case diary to connect the petitioner with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1689 of 2025(3) dt.28-02-2025 3/3 alleged occurrence, much less with the killing of the JCB driver and a general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons, including the petitioner who is a lady and is languishing in custody since 12.08.2024, thus I deem it fit and proper to admit the petitioner to the privilege of regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM-I, Lakhisarai in connection with Chanan P.S. Case No.41 of 2017. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Saurav/- U T