Kumari Ranjubala @ Ranjubala v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7911 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2023 Thana- UJIYARPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.
Kumari Ranjubala @ Ranjubala Wife Of Anil Kumar Mahto @ Vinod Mahto R/O Pachpaika Ps - Ujiarpur District- Samastipur 2.
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Mahto Son Of Late Ramchandra Mahto R/O Kashipur, Ward No 34 Ps- Samastipur Town Dist -Samastipur Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Surendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 20-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 307, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, it is a case of opening fire by the accused person namely, Mithilesh Mahto upon the informant's son Sonu Kumar due to which he sustained gunshot injury and shot dead. The allegation against the petitioner Santosh Mahto is that he was given order to shot pellet to Sonu Kumar and petitioner Ranjubala was standing there with acid bottle.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7911 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 2/2 committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity and land dispute. There is case and counter case between the parties. No any specific overt-act attributed against the petitioners. From perusal of FIR, the specific allegation is against co-accused Mithilesh Mahto who opened fire upon the deceased due to which he died. It is further submitted that as per impugned order, cause of death due to firearm injury. Petitioners are languishing in judicial custody since 28.11.2023.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as period of custody, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The above named petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai (Samastipur) in connection with Ujiarpur P.S. Case No.434 of 2023.
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T