The High Court of Patna, in an oral order, declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, finding no new grounds distinct from a previous rejection, as the victim had identified the petitioner but not a co-accused.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11762 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -391 Year- 2015 Thana -TURKAULIYA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI)
====================================================== Marachho Devi Wife of Shambhoo Sahani, Resident of Hardia P.O. and P.S.- Turkauliya, District- East Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Kumar For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Murlidhar
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
2 15-03-2017 Heard the parties.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Turkauliya P.S.Case No.391 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366(A), 372 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by order dated 14.07.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. No.55085 of 2015.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one co-accused Rita Devi was granted anticipatory bail, vide order dated 17.09.2016. The case of the petitioner stands on the same footing but from perusal of order dated 14.07.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. No.55085 of 2015 itself, it appears that the case of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11762 of 2017 (2) dt.15-03-2017
2/2
the petitioner stands on different footing, the victim herself disclosed name of the petitioner in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the victim has not disclosed name of Rita
Devi in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I do not find new grounds to consider the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
chn/-
U
Marachho Devi
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
