Anu Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2742 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-309 Year-2024 Thana- GORIAKOTHI District- Siwan ====================================================== Anu Kumari D/o Nishikant Singh @ Narhari Singh @ Narhadi Singh Resident of Village- Sadipur, Police Station- Goreyakothi, District- Siwan, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhayay, Adv Ms. Tetara Kumari, Adv Mr.Raju Prasad, Adv Mr. Manjesh Raj, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-02-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad. 2.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection of Goreyakothi PS Case No. 309 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3.

The case was taken up on 2-2-2026, when SHO and the Investigating Officer of the case were directed to remain physically present before this Court, but it has been submitted by learned APP that the Investigating Officer, on account of some difficulty, could not appear, but then the SHO is present. 4.

The SHO, who is present in the Court, does not dispute the fact that the final form was submitted in favour of the petitioner, but then it is submitted that on orders of his superior,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2742 of 2026(3) dt.03-02-2026 2/2 he had no option but to arrest the petitioner, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was mentioned on 31-1-2026 for taking it up out of turn on 2-2-2026, as police despite submitting final form were making endeavours to arrest the petitioner. It is next submitted that the case thereafter was fixed for 2-2-2026 and the sister of the petitioner met the SHO and the IO bringing to their notice that High Court has fixed the case for taking it up out of turn, but then the SHO and the IO, despite being made aware of the said fact, arrested the petitioner. 5.

The SHO does not dispute the said submission that the sister of the petitioner had contacted him on 31-1-2026 bringing to his notice that case has been fixed for 2-2-2026, but then on orders of his superior, he had no option but to arrest the petitioner.

6.

Since the petitioner has been arrested, as such the Court does not intend to proceed any further. The anticipatory bail application is dismissed as having become infructuous. 7.

The personal appearance of the SHO and the Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T