✦ Patna High Court

Champa Devi v. The State of Bihar

AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 89718 of 2024RAJESH KUMAR VERMA3 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Provisions considered

Judgment

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : For the Informant : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedy, Advocate 3 19-04-2025 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedy, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Sirisiya P.S. Case No. 35 of 2024, F.I.R. dated

18.05.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

As per the First Information Report, informant stated therein that his sister (now, deceased) was married with one Babloo Yadav in the year 2016. It is alleged that co-accused Hirarlal Yadav intended to establish illicit relationship with her sister, and in fear of this fact being disclosed, the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89718 of 2024(3) dt.19-04-2025 along with others, in conspiracy killed his sister.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the ground that she is wife of the co-accused Hiralal Yadav and from bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that the informant is not the eye witness of the occurrence and merely on the basis of suspicion, the present FIR is instituted. He further submits that during investigation, the statement of co-accused Hiralal Yadav was recorded before the police, in which he has stated that the petitioner was also involved in the present occurrence and except the confessional statement of the co-accused, no other material is there, which suggest the involvement of petitioner in the present occurrence. He further submits that husband of the petitioner is in custody since 21.05.2024.

5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioner has clean antecedent and except the confessional statement of the co-accused who happens to be the husband of the petitioner, no other material is there which suggest the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89718 of 2024(3) dt.19-04-2025 involvement of petitioner in the present occurrence and husband of the petitioner is in custody since 21.05.2024, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 1st Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Sirisiya P.S. Case No. 35 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. 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. iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89718 of 2024(3) dt.19-04-2025 any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification. Suruchi/- U T (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Patna High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 89718 of 2024). ← Search more judgments