Dismissed

Madhu Kumari @ Saista Pervin @ Saista v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC22 May 2020CR. APP (SJ)/4854/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the appellant's bail application in cases involving offences under IPC and SC/ST Act related to a reformative house where women went missing. The court denied bail due to prior conviction by CBI and remanded the case for expedited trial within four months.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; trial directed to be concluded within four months; bail renewable if trial not concluded by then.

Madhu Kumari @ Saista Pervin @ Saista Vs The… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4854 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

MADHU KUMARI @ SAISTA PERVIN @ SAISTA, aged about 39 years, Female, D/O Late Vishwanath Singh @ Vishwasnath, Resident of Mohalla - Choti Bazar Gudri, P.S.- Muzaffarpur Town, District- Muzaffarpur

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Md. Shahnawaz Ali For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶9

5 22-05-2020

¶10

Heard Mr. Shahnawaz Ali, the learned counsel

¶11

appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Binay Krishna, the learned Special P.P.

¶12

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶13

The appellant filed this appeal for grant of bail in Muzaffarpur East Mahila P.S. Case No.40 of 2018, corresponding to Trial No.114 of 2019 for the offences allegedly committed by the appellant under Sections 188, 363, 366A, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(i) (z) of the SC/ST Act.

¶14

The gist of the allegation against the appellant is that the appellant is one of the Promoters of N.G.O. Seva Sankalp and Vikas Samiti who runs Swadhar Grih under Social Welfare Department Scheme. The appellant and other workers of N.G.O.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4854 of 2019(5) dt.22-05-2020 2/3

¶16

kept 11 women in the reformative house but when the house was again inspected on 09.06.2018, all women kept therein were found missing.

¶17

Mr. Shahnawaz Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the N.G.O. was registered in the year 1987 and at that time the appellant was minor aged about 7 years. The date of birth of the appellant is 4^th June, 1980. The only allegation against the appellant is that the appellant was also a Promoter of N.G.O. who under the scheme of the Social Welfare Department keeps abandoned women in the reformative house but there is no allegation against the appellant that the appellant misbehaved or kidnapped any women or forced them to sexual intercourse. The appellant is in jail since 07.01.2019. The appellant has already remained in jail for more than one year and four months. The trial has not yet been concluded.

¶18

Mr. Binay Krishna, the learned Special P.P. on the contrary submits that the appellant has already been convicted in RC0922018s0001, arising out of Muzaffarpur Mahila P.S. Case No.33 of 2018. In that case many women/minors were forced to have physical relation. Brijesh Thakur and the appellant and others were found indulged in forcing the minors and other women for sexual intercourse against their wishes and they have already been convicted by a C.B.I. Court of Delhi as the trial of the case was

¶19

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4854 of 2019(5) dt.22-05-2020 3/3

¶20

transferred to Delhi by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this case also there is allegation against the appellant that she was the core associate of Brijesh Thakur and from the reformative house many women were found traceless.

¶21

Taking into consideration the facts and the nature of allegations made against the appellant, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail as she has also been convicted in another case. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected.

¶22

The appeal is dismissed/

¶23

The trial court is directed to hold the trial on day to day basis and conclude the same within four months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶24

Let a copy of this order be sent to the S.S.P., Muzaffarpur for ensuring the attendance of the witnesses so that the trial must be concluded within four months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶25

If the trial is not concluded within four months, the appellant, if so advised, may renew her prayer for bail.

¶26

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)

¶27

S.KUMAR/-

¶28

U T

Madhu Kumari @ Saista Pervin @ Saista v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Kumari @ Saista Pervin @ Saista v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naushad Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Amrendra Shekhar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Balak Das Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Aman Parasar @ Aman Kumar @ Rana Singh @ Rana Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjeev Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Abdul Alim Khan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.