Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Baby Devi @ Baby Kumari Vs. the State of Bihar Through Vig

Baby Devi @ Baby Kumari vs The State of Bihar Through Vig

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 25, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/975481

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Baby Devi @ Baby Kumari

Respondent

The State of Bihar Through Vig

Excerpt

.....no. 12822 of 2011 with liberty to petitioner to renew her prayer, if her trial is not concluded within six months. the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial of the petitioner is still pending and having similar allegation co-accused shakuntala devi has already been granted privilege of bail by this court vide order dated 12.12.2011 passed in cr. misc. no. 40714 of 2011. learned counsel appearing for the vigilance opposed the prayer pointing out that up-till-now only half of the defalcated amount could be traced out. so, petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail because she facilitated the main patna high court cr.misc. no.857 of 2012 (2) dt.25-01-2012 accused to digest the defalcated amount. considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of special judge, vigilance north bihar, muzaffarpur in connection with special case no. 27 of 2010 arising out of muzaffarpur town p.s. case no. 401 of 2010 subject to condition that petitioner shall attend the trial court on each and every date in person for the period of one year and if she fails to do so on three consecutive dates without any genuine cause, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (hemant kumar srivastava, j.) shahzad/-

Full Judgment

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.857 of 2012 (2) dt.25-01-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.857 of 2012 ====================================================== Baby Devi @ Baby Kumari, W/O-Late Upendra Prasad Singh .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA”

25. 01-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12822 of 2011 with liberty to petitioner to renew her prayer, if her trial is not concluded within six months. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial of the petitioner is still pending and having similar allegation co-accused Shakuntala Devi has already been granted privilege of bail by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40714 of 2011. Learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance opposed the prayer pointing out that up-till-now only half of the defalcated amount could be traced out. So, petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail because she facilitated the main Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.857 of 2012 (2) dt.25-01-2012 accused to digest the defalcated amount. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Vigilance North Bihar, Muzaffarpur in connection with Special Case No. 27 of 2010 arising out of Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 401 of 2010 subject to condition that petitioner shall attend the trial court on each and every date in person for the period of one year and if she fails to do so on three consecutive dates without any genuine cause, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.) SHAHZAD/-

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial