Ksei Devi @ Kaisi Devi @ Kesi Devi v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 302, 323, 328, 341, 354, 447, 448, 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 s. 8
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gunja Kumari D/O- Rampukar Ram Resident of Village- Jitaura Gosaipur, P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P. ORAL ORDER 2 28-02-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 341, 323, 354, 328, 302, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and is a woman and the informant alleges that on 01.11.2023, at 10:00 p.m., the accused persons including the petitioner barged into the house of the informant and Anil Ram dashed the mother of the informant on the ground and thereafter all the accused persons started assaulting her with leg and fist. It is further alleged that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.625 of 2025(2) dt.28-02-2025 accused persons killed the mother of the informant either by strangulating or by administering poison.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the allegations are vague and cryptic. It is further submitted that in the nature of allegation, it can very well be culled out that the informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. It is next submitted that the informant alleges that her mother was killed either on account of strangulation or poisoning which amply demonstrates that the informant had not seen the occurrence. It is also submitted that postmortem of the dead body was conducted and the injury suffered by the victim was simple in nature. It is also submitted that Anil Ram had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 43619 of 2024 and the same was allowed by an order dated 20.11.2024.
Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also taking into account the order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 43619 of 2024, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of her arrest or surrender Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.625 of 2025(2) dt.28-02-2025 before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 555 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T
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.