Patna High Court
Sumitra Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 13 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 26871 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-305 Year-2020 Thana- HUSSAINGANJ District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Sumitra Devi, Female, aged about 77 years, wife of Late Srinath Gond.
2. Sunita Devi, Female, aged about 40 years, Wife of Shravan Gond.
Both are the resident of Village-Tikri, PS-Hussainganj, District-Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Pronoti Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Irshad Ahmad Khan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-08-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners; Ms. Pronoti Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State and
Mr. Irshad Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the informant.
3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with
Hussainganj PS Case No. 305 of 2020 dated 02.11.2020,
instituted under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. The allegation against the petitioners and their
other family members is of abducting the son of the informant on
suspicion that he had run away with the grand-daughter of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26871 of 2021 dt.13-08-2021
the petitioner no. 1. Later, the dead body of the son of the
informant has been recovered and the postmortem reveals that
he was strangulated.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioner no. 1 is a 77 years old lady, suffering from various
ailments and has no concern with such affair and that the
petitioner no. 2 was not in the village at the relevant time. It was
further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 had lodged FIR
against the informant and her family members on 13.07.2019
with regard to abduction of her grand-daughter by the informant
and her family members including his son. It was submitted that
as per the FIR in the present case, which was instituted on
02.11.2019, it has been stated that when the son of the informant
had gone missing, and they had gone to the house of the
informant, the accused had held back another son of the
informant and when they had gone to the police, it was assured
that the son of the informant would return. Learned counsel
submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are ladies and from
the postmortem, it appears that death was due to strangulation and
the trachea was found to be injured and thrashed. Thus, learned
counsel submitted that the same is not likely to have been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26871 of 2021 dt.13-08-2021
committed by the petitioners as the male members were also
accused and they were sufficient, if at all, they had done it, to
commit the crime. Learned counsel submitted that only because
the petitioners are members of the family, they have been made
accused in the case.
6. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that
witnesses have supported the prosecutor story and further that no
other angle has come during investigation with regard to any other
person having any motive to commit the crime and there is clear
indication of the petitioners' side having a strong motive to
commit the crime as the grand-daughter of the petitioner no. 1 is
alleged to have been taken away by the younger son of the
informant and still they are traceless. It was submitted that in such
background, it is clear that to take revenge from the family of the
informant, the brother, of the boy who is said to have taken away
the grand-daughter of the petitioner no. 1, has been done to death.
Learned counsel submitted that even a year back, the petitioner
no. 1 had filed a case alleging abduction of her grand-daughter by
the said son of the informant but the girl upon recovery had stated
that she had left her home on her own free will and had called the
other son of the informant which clearly shows that there was no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26871 of 2021 dt.13-08-2021
role of the informant or her family and further that there had been
no abduction of the girl.
7. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that all
the family members of the accused, including the petitioners, were
involved in the crime which has been established during
investigation.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court
finds that the plea taken by the petitioner no. 1 that she is 77 years
old does not appear to be correct as in the complaint filed before
the police, which is the basis of institution of Hussainganj PS Case
No. 208 of 2019 dated 02.11.2019, which is hand written, the
petitioner no. 1 has disclosed her age as 50 years, whereas in the
present petition, it is shown as 77 years. Further, the plea that the
petitioners were not involved in the incident and they had no role,
also does not prima facie appears to be correct for the reason that
when the petitioner no. 1 was the informant in the other case, it is
obvious that she was directly involved in the issue and, thus, after
one year, again when the incident occurred, whatever happened
could not have been without the knowledge or consent of the
petitioners, especially petitioner no. 1. Thus, on an overall view of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26871 of 2021 dt.13-08-2021
entire matter, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to
the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
10. Interim protection granted to the petitioners under
order dated 12.07.2021, stands vacated.
11. However, in view of submission of learned counsel
for the petitioners, it is observed that if the petitioners appear
before the Court below and pray for bail, the same shall be
considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, without
being prejudiced by the present order.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
