Rajnee Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18975 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2020 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== RAJNEE DEVI Wife of Ajeet Paswan Resident of Village- Digha Fatahpur, P.S.- Baligaon, District- Vaishali at Hajipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anshu Dhar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kundan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 13-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant case for depositing the requisite court fee and to remove the defect(s) as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 313 and 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is a case of administering anti-pregnancy drugs by the petitioner and other co-accused with intention to miscarriage the pregnancy of the informant so that her second marriage would be performed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18975 of 2021(3) dt.13-01-2022 2/2 the occurrence took place on 11.02.2020 but the FIR has been lodged on 01.06.2020 and it was sent to court on 05.06.2020 without any explanation of delay. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Shambhu Ray @ Shambhu Rai @ Shambhu Kumar has already been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15987 of 2021 vide order dated 11.01.2022 and the case of this petitioner stands on similar footing.

Learned APP appearing for the State on the basis of the case diary has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Samastipur in connection with Tajpur P.S. Case No. 178 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) brajesh kumar/- U T