The petitioner no. 2 was arrested merely on suspicion; hence the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.258021 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 66 Year 2019 Thana CHOUTARWA District West Champaran 1. Dilip Mushar aged about 30 years Male son of Sudama Mushar 2. Gaudi Devi aged about 35 years Female wife of late Bhutkun Mushra Both resident of Village Bahuarwa Farm P.S. Chautarwa Dist. West ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey Advocate Ms. Indu Kumari Srivastava APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 06 09 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioner which 3. Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Indu Kumari Srivastava learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 namely Dilip Mushar as he has been arrested. 5. In view thereof the petition on behalf of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.258021 dt.06 09 2021 petitioner no. 1 Dilip Mushar stands disposed of as withdrawn and is restricted to the petitioner no. 2 namely Gaudi Devi 6. The petitioner no. 2 apprehends arrest in connection with Chautarwa PS Case No. 66 of 2019 dated 11.03.2019 instituted under Sections 302 201 34 of the Indian Penal Code 7. As per the FIR the body of the brother of the informant was recovered which showed that he had been killed by sharp cutting and penetrating weapon and nine persons have been named including the petitioner no. 2 against whom suspicion has been raised that in the past she used to abuse and had also assaulted the deceased. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 submitted that the allegation is totally false and concocted. It was submitted that there is only one wound which led to the death of the deceased and the petitioner no. 2 being a lady and one among nine co accused it is unbelievable that she would be the perpetrator of the crime. Further learned counsel submitted that another woman co accused namely Rampati Devi has been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench by order dated 23.10.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 64350 of 2019. Learned counsel submitted that the investigation shows that the deceased had relationship with the petitioner no. 2 and even for the sake Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.258021 dt.06 09 2021 of argument if the same is accepted then all the more reason that the petitioner no. 2 could not have been the person behind the killing of the deceased as she would have no reason for committing such crime. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner no. 2 has become widow at a very young age and has no criminal antecedent. accomplice in the crime. 9. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner is an 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in view of the petitioner no. 2 being a lady and there being only suspicion raised and one wound found on the body of the deceased and further that similarly situated lady co accused Rampati Devi having been granted anticipatory bail and the petitioner no. 2 is not having any other criminal antecedent the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre arrest bail 11. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioner no. 2 namely Gaudi Devi be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner no. 2 that the petitioner no. 2 shall cooperate with the Court and the police prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of her bail bonds. 12. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioner no. 2 to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner no. 2 13. The petition stands disposed of in the Ahsanuddin Amanullah J J. Alam 

Summary:  The petitioner no. 2 was taken into custody under Sections 302 IPC, “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine”, section 201, “Causing disappearance of evidence of the offence, or giving false information to screen offender”, section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.” This is in connection with Chautarwa PS Case No. 66 of 2019 dated 11.03.2019. The petition on behalf of petitioner no.1 stands disposed. In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 21st August  2021 in the case of Dilip Mushar and Gaudi Devi, Versus the State of Bihar, [Criminal Miscellaneous No.25806 of 2021] Mr Bimlesh Kumar Pandey represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Ms Indu Kumari Srivastava represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case according to the FIR, the petitioner along with nine other persons was accused of killing the informant’s brother as the body of the deceased was recovered which showed that he had been killed by sharp cutting and penetrating weapon. Petitioner no.2 has been held on suspicion as in the past she used to abuse and assault the brother of the informant. The counsel representing petitioner no.2 held that these allegations is totally false and concocted. The reason for the death was due to one particular wound. Petitioner no.2  is a lady and one of the nine people who have been accused and there is a lack of evidence that she has committed the crime. Further, the counsel held that another woman who was co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinated Bench by order dated 23.10.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 64350 of 2019. The counsel held that after investigation it showed that petitioner no.2 had a relationship with the deceased, therefore, petitioner no.2 could not have been the person who killed the deceased and she is also a young widow and has no other criminal antecedent. The additional public prosecutor held that the petitioner was a party to the crime and must be held liable for the same. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court held that the fact that petitioner no. 2 is a lady and there being the only suspicion raised and one wound found on the body of the deceased and further, that similarly situated in the lady co-accused, Rampati Devi, having been granted anticipatory bail and the petitioner no. 2 is not having any other criminal antecedent, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail. The court concluded that “the petitioner no. 2, namely, Gaudi Devi, be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in PS Case No. 66 of 2019, under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973  (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner no. 2, (ii) that the petitioner no. 2 shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to the cancellation of her bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.” Click here to read the judgment