Allowed

Sarita Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Sept 2022CR. MISC./24770/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioners in a case involving alleged abduction and killing. The court emphasized the lack of substantive material, non-recovery of the dead body, and the charge-sheet submission, directing a one-year trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail with bonds of Rs. 20,000 each and two sureties of like amounts, subject to other conditions under Section 437(3) CrPC.

Sarita Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.372 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2020 Thana- LADANIA District- Madhubani

¶3

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

¶4

Govind Singh, Son of Lakhan Singh, Resident of Village- Gajhara (Navtoli), P.S.- Ladaniya, District- Madhubani.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

with

¶9

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 24770 of 2022

¶10

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2020 Thana- LADANIA District- Madhubani

¶11

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

¶12

Sarita Devi, Wife of Govind Singh, Resident of village - Navtoli Gajahara, P.S.- Ladania, District - Madhubani.

¶13

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 372 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv. Mr.Subhash Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, APP For the Informant : Ms. Sweta Kumari, Advocate (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 24770 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mrs.Kumari Shubham, Advocate Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶15

5 06-09-2022

¶16

Pursuant to the order dated 04.08.2022, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, which is taken on record.

¶17

Since both the applications arise out of Ladaniya P.S. Case No. 179 of 2020, as such, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.

¶19

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.372 of 2022(5) dt.06-09-2022 2/5

¶21

removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect.

¶22

In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in connection with Ladaniya P.S. Case No. 179 of 2020 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 363, 364, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

As per prosecution case, the informant alleged that the petitioners along with the co-accused Ranju Devi under a conspiracy abducted the son of the informant and concealed him somewhere with intention to sell him out or kill him.

¶24

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR has been registered after a delay of 28 days for which there is no explanation. For an occurrence which took place on 04.08.2020, the FIR has been registered on 02.09.2020. The informant is not an eye-witness and did not disclose who narrated the whole story to him. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from their conscious possession. Police did not find anything against the petitioners and only on the basis of confessional statement of the coaccused Ranju Devi, they have been arrested in this case. Though the dead body has not been recovered yet the police

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.372 of 2022(5) dt.06-09-2022 3/5

¶26

added Section 302 of IPC against the petitioners and his family. The whole prosecution case is based on conjecture and surmises. There is no circumstantial evidence either against any of the petitioners. Co-accused Ranju Devi has been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27416 of 2021. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. The petitioner Govind Singh is in custody since 25.09.2021 whereas the petitioner Sarita Devi is in custody since 07.02.2022, respectively. They are having clean antecedent.

¶27

Learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the petitioners and other co-accused persons threatened the informant and his family members and have been pressurizing them for withdrawal of the case made against them. The call details record also shows the petitioner Govind Singh was in continuous touch with the co-accused Ranju Devi and tower location was found near the house of the co-accused Ranju Devi. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that the co-accused has confessed and also stated about the role of the petitioners in the whole occurrence wherein the son of the

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.372 of 2022(5) dt.06-09-2022 4/5

¶29

informant was killed by them.

¶30

Perused the records.

¶31

Having regard to the submission made hereinabove and considering the non-recovery of dead body and distinct lack of substantive material against the petitioners to connect them with the alleged offences and further considering the period of custody of the petitioners along with submission of charge sheet, the petitioners above named are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Madhubani in connection with Ladaniya P.S. Case No. 179 of 2020 Corresponding to C.R.I. No. 1800 of 2020, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the following conditions :

¶32

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.

¶33

(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below.

¶34

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioners will be liable to be

¶35

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.372 of 2022(5) dt.06-09-2022 5/5

¶36

cancelled by the court concerned.

¶37

Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and

¶38

conclude the same within one year.

¶39

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶40

balmukund/- U T

Sarita Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Devi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhatan @ Bhatan Kora @ Bhagtan Kora Vs The State of Bihar

Anish Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Amiri Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Jaymangal Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Biresh Yadav @ Biresh Prasad Chakravarti Vs the State of Bihar

Yogi Mahto Vs The State of Bihar