Kanti Devi Vs The State of Bihar

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

4 06-05-2025

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 87 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Prosecution case, in short, is that, informant’s brother was murdered by his own wife with the help of 3-4 persons and fled away with children. It is further alleged that petitioner had also extra marital affairs.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent lady and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that deceased and informant are full brother and there was dispute between

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6612 of 2025(4) dt.06-05-2025 2/3

¶19

them regarding, house and property and due to the said reason, the informant has falsely implicated him in the present case. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is poor lady and she has to look after her children. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 09.06.2024 and has no criminal antecedent.

¶20

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP further submitted that petitioner in her confessional statement has confessed her guilt and has specifically stated that she along with other co-accused persons hatched a conspiracy and committed the murder of her husband. Learned APP further submitted that post-mortem report also supports the case of the prosecution.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner being lady as also the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Let the petitioner be released on bail, after framing

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6612 of 2025(4) dt.06-05-2025 3/3

¶24

of charge, if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 87 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:

¶25

(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the family of the petitioner.

¶26

(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

¶27

(III) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶28

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶29

Alok Verma/-

¶30

U T

Kanti Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanti Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shiv Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sonu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bhola Mahto @ Shivshankar Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Akash Kumar @ Akash Rai @ Akash Kr Vs The State of Bihar

Rajveer Kumar Singh @ Rajveer Singh @chhotu Vs The State of Bihar