Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds after being arrested under Sections 302 and 201/34IPC: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 377020 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 53 Year 2019 Thana ALIPUR District Gaya Madhu Devi aged about 22 years Female wife of Pappu Kumar Rai Resident of Village Barshimha PS Alipur District Gaya The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State For the Parents of Deceased Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh Advocate Mr. Md. Arif APP Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22 07 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Md. Arif learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha learned counsel for the parents of the deceased. 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Alipur PS Case No. 519 dated 20.07.2019 instituted under Sections 302 and 201 34 of the Indian Penal Code 4. The petitioner who is the wife of the younger brother of the husband of the deceased is accused of being party to the murder of the deceased. The body of the deceased was recovered Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.22 07 2021 on 20.07.2019 which disclosed brutal assault as there were various cuts on the face and upon not being identified for three days it was also cremated and later on as the father in law of the petitioner had filed a case with regard to his elder daughter in law missing the case turned in the direction of the victim being identified and the allegation is that she was killed in the matrimonial home in connivance with all those present 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she being the wife of the younger brother of the husband of the deceased had no role in the murder and the only material which has come against her is the confessional statement of her father in law which has been brought on record in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in which details have been given both with regard to the reason why the deceased was killed and the manner of the occurrence and disposal of the body in which also it has clearly been stated that the petitioner was neither aware of the plan by the others to kill the deceased and further that only when they were taking away the body she had woken up and was threatened not to raise any cry due to which she kept quiet. Learned counsel submitted that besides the said only suspicion has been raised that too by the relatives of the deceased who were neither present at the time of occurrence nor Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.22 07 2021 were privy to what was going on in the matrimonial home of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that even as per the confessional statement the petitioner is said to have been aware of the crime only after everything was complete and the body was being taken out of the house for disposal. Learned counsel submitted that besides being a lady the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has absolutely no role in the crime as there was absolutely no reason or motive for her to be party to such crime if at all it was committed. Learned counsel submitted that the father in law of the petitioner who has made the confessional statement was taken into custody on 07.08.2019 and has been granted bail by a co ordinate Bench by order dated 22.01.2020 passed in Cr Misc. No. 40620 6. Learned APP submitted that she has been made accused because she was also part of the matrimonial home of the deceased but fairly submitted that from the confessional statement of the father in law of the deceased who is also father in law of the petitioner the petitioner had neither any prior information nor was party to the crime and became aware only when the body was being taken out of the house for disposal and that due to threatening issued to her she had kept quiet Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.22 07 2021 7. Learned counsel for the parents of the deceased submitted that the petitioner was a member of the matrimonial home and that she is equally responsible for the crime. It was submitted that the body had been hacked in a brutal manner and further that the relatives of the deceased have stated in their statement to the police that the petitioner also had a role and that she has also been chargesheeted by the police 8. At this juncture when the Court put a direct query to learned counsel as to whether there is any independent source which has verified that the petitioner had any direct role in the crime he could not controvert the fact that the confessional statement of the father in law of the deceased as well as the petitioner is the only information with regard to the manner and mode of the crime as well as the role of various accused in the 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III Gaya in Alipur Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.22 07 2021 PS Case No. 519 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and further and further that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner andthat the petitioner shall co operate with the Court and police prosecution. Failure to co operate shall lead to cancellation of her bail bonds 10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the 11. The petition stands disposed off in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was arrested under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, “ Punishment for murder”,section201, “Causing disappearance of evidence of the offense, or giving false information to screen offender” and section 34, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.” This is in connection with Alipur PS Case No. 53 of 2019 dated 20.07.2019This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna on the 22nd of June 2021 by Honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah  in the case of Madhu Devi versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 37704 of 2020, Mr. Prasad Singh represented as the advocate as the petitioner and Mr. Arif represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner has been accused of being party to the murder of her co-sister, she is the wife of the younger brother of the husband of the deceased, the body was recovered and was covered in bruises on her face,  which disclosed brutal assault, the father in law of the petitioner filed for a case as his elder daughter in law was missing and this was directed to the victim who was killed in the matrimonial home with the petitioners present in the crime scene. The counsel for the petitioner held that as the petitioner is the co-sister she had no role to play in the murder and was falsely implicated and the reason for this accusation is due to the confessional statement of her father in law where details have been given with regard to why the deceased was killed and it was clearly stated that the petitioner was not aware of the plan made by others to commit the murder, the counsel conceded that the petitioner was merely a suspicion, and she has no criminal antecedent and had absolutely no role in the crime, the father In a law was also taken into custody and was granted bail. The counsel for the parents of the petitioner held that since the petitioner was a member of the matrimonial home, she must be held responsible for the crime. Since the body was attacked in a brutal manner the relatives of the petitioner and therefore are suspicious that she was involved in the crime The court held that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 “(i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner and (ii) that the petitioner shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution.”