Anju Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3491 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-386 Year-2024 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
Anju Devi wife of Triveni Singh Resident of village -Ram Nagar Diyara Athmalgola Police Station -Athamalgola District -Patna 2.
Banti Kumar son of Triveni Singh Resident of village -Ram Nagar Diyara Athmalgola Police Station -Athamalgola District -Patna 3.
Triveni Singh Son of Late Pramhansh Singh Resident of village -Ram Nagar Diyara Athmalgola Police Station -Athamalgola District -Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sudha Wife of Late Raktu Singh @ Ganesh Singh Resident of village -Ram Nagar Diyara Athmalgola Police Station -Athamalgola District -Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Chandrasen Prasad Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the first information report of Athamalgola Police Station Case No. 386/2024 dated 23.11.2024 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) BNS and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, one Sudha has lodged a complaint, which has subsequently been registered as Athamalgola Police Station Case No. 386/2024, stating that on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3491 of 2025(2) dt.24-03-2026 2/3 17.11.2024 at 10:00 A.M. her son Raja Kumar had gone to the house of his cousin sister and when he returned home, his uncle Triveni Singh (petitioner no. 3) assaulted him on his leg with iron rod and Bunty Kumar (petitioner no. 2) and his mother Anju Devi fired from gun, which did not hit and further took 10 gram chain of her son Raja Kumar, upon which Raja Kumar called 112, whereafter the accused persons fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a delay of altogether six days in lodging the FIR and the FIR was sent to the court after a further delay of 10 days and the case is a concocted one and the petitioner no. 3 has also filed an informatory petition on earlier point of time apprehending his false implication and of others at the hand of the prosecution party. The primary objective of the Opposite Party No. 2/ informant was to ruin the career of the petitioner no. 2.
5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of the parties, the petitioners have come for quashing of the FIR registered for the offences punishable under Section 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) BNS and 27 of the Arms Act, the investigation is at its nascent stage and the case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3491 of 2025(2) dt.24-03-2026 3/3 being serious in nature. As the case is under investigation, this court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
7. The case is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(Praveen Kumar, J) niku/- U T