Blog

 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 21^st 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

Judgment reviewed by – A. Beryl Sugirtham