Lalbati Devi @ Lalpati Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18802 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2020 Thana- SARAI District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

LALBATI DEVI @ LALPATI DEVI Wife of Late Bisheshwar Mahto Resident of Village - Akhtiarpur Patedha, P.S.- Sarai, District - Vaishali 2.

Munni Devi Wife of Sultan Mahto Resident of Village - Akhtiarpur Patedha, P.S.- Sarai, District - Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-12-2021 Earlier, prayer for bail of the petitioner no. 2 was dismissed as withdrawn.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual court proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 341, 323, 337, 338, 307, 302, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner rather allegation levelled against the petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18802 of 2021(3) dt.03-12-2021 2/2 general and omnibus in nature. He submits that there is allegation of assaulting the wife of the informant by means of lathi, danda and bricks but in the postmortem report no injury was found by means of bricks and lathi, danda. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application.

However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the there is specific allegation against the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, her prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with Sarai P.S. Case No. 211 of 2020 pending before the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 16 Vaishali at Hajipur.

If the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below and pray for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the learned court below on the same day without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T