Patna High Court - Orders
Pratima Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 4 March, 2022
Author: A. M. Badar
Bench: A. M. Badar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42804 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2021 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
======================================================
Pratima Kumari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anand Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Aslam Ansari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR
ORAL ORDER
3 04-03-2022It is very unfortunate to note that in this case wherein the prosecution is alleging that a lady Advocate had conspired and killed her husband named Amrendra Kumar, counter affidavit field by the State only because of order passed by this Court on 22.01.2022 is far from satisfactory.
This is so because in the counter affidavit it is not mentioned that applicant/accused Pratima Kumari was having talk with contract killers named Bimlesh Kumar @ Chotan and Nikhil Kumar Pandey @ Golu. However the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is vehemently arguing that applicant Pratima Kumari was having talk with accused Bimlesh Kumar @ Chotan and Nikhil Kumar Pandey @ Golu and evidence in the form of call detail records came to be collected by the prosecution. Question therefore normally comes in the mind of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42804 of 2021(3) dt.04-03-2022 2/4 the Court as to why this prime evidence is not figuring in the counter affidavit of the Investigating Officer.
It is necessary to quote relevant paragraphs of the earlier order of this Court dated 22.01.2022, which is quoted hereinunder:-
"It is very unfortunate to note that though the leaned Additional Public Prosecutor has stated that he is ready in the matter, when the Court started questioning him, it is seen that he is not even equipped with the case diary of the subject crime. On fail to understand as to with which material the learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that he is ready with the matter.
In this view of the matter, the respondent/State is directed to file affidavit of the responsible Investigating Officer mentioning all evidence, if any, appearing against the appellant in the subject case."
It seems that the prosecution wing of the State is not interested in opposing the bail petition as the important evidence is not mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the State in pursuance of the order dated 22.01.2022. This Court has questioned as to what is the evidence to show that mobile phones are seized from contract killers/accused Bimlesh Kumar @ Chotan and Nikhil Kumar Pandey @ Golu, which were those numbers and what was the mobile phone number of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42804 of 2021(3) dt.04-03-2022 3/4 applicant/accused Pratima Kumari. Unfortunately, this information is not forthcoming. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is only saying that he will place the case diary before the Court.
What is expected to be pointed out to the Court is seizure memo of the mobile phone containing the mobile numbers from which the contract killers/co-accused had talked with the applicant/accused Pratima Kumari so also seizure memo of mobile phone of applicant Pratima Kumari having that SIM card of that particular phone number.
As despite the order dated 22.01.2022, the requisite material is not forthcoming, this Court directs the concerned Superintendent of Police to swear his personal affidavit explaining the facts as stated in the forthcoming paragraph of this order constituting the evidence if any against the present applicant regarding conspiracy by having talks with the contract killers for eliminating her husband.
The requisite compliance be done within a period of one week from today.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor to communicate this order to the concerned Superintendent of Police for compliance.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42804 of 2021(3) dt.04-03-2022 4/4 Registry to inform of the passing of this order to the concerned Superintendent of Police for compliance. Failure to compliance this order shall be construed as interference in the course administration of Justice in the light of the fact that despite earlier order dated 22.01.2022, there is no compliance in the letter and spirit of that order.
Post this matter on 10.03.2022 under the appropriate heading.
Bhardwaj/- (A. M. Badar, J) U T