Tuntun Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18671 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2019 Thana- BAUNSI District- Banka ====================================================== 1.

TUNTUN YADAV Son of Late Hari Yadav Resident of Village - Bhandarichak, P.S.- Bounsi, District - Banka 2.

Kiran Devi Wife of Tuntun Yadav Resident of Village - Bhandarichak, P.S.- Bounsi, District - Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brij Nandad Prasad,Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ramchandra Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 24-03-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the application of petitioner no. 1 Tuntun Yadav, since during the pendency of this application, he has been arrested.

Permission is accorded.

Accordingly, the application of petitioner no. 1 Tuntun Yadav is dismissed as withdrawn.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 Kiran Devi and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner no.

apprehends her arrest in connection with Bounsi P.S. Case No. 218 of 2019 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18671 of 2021(5) dt.24-03-2022 2/2 Code.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner no. 2 is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to dirty village politics. There is general and omnibus allegation against her. Petitioner has no criminal history.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner no. 2 by contending that there is direct allegation of assault against her by means of lathi on the head of the informant. Hence, petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on behalf of the opposite party, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner no. 2 is rejected. utkarsh/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T