Manju Devi @ Sumintra Devi @ Sumitra Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13198 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2024 Thana- MOHIUDDIN NAGAR DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== 1.
Manju Devi @ Sumintra Devi @ Sumitra Devi, aged about 50 years, Female, Wife of Damodar Sahni, Resident of Village- Maksudanpur Bhadaiya Ward Number 05, P.O. -Mohiuddin Nagar, P.S. -Mohiuddin Nagar, District -Samastipur.
2.
Damodar Sahni, aged about 53 years, Male, Son of Bitho Sahni @ Visho Sahni, Resident of Village- Maksudanpur Bhadaiya Ward Number 05, P.O. -Mohiuddin Nagar, P.S. -Mohiuddin Nagar, District -Samastipur. 3.
Saint Lal Sahni, aged about 40 years, Male, Son of Ram Chandra Sahni, Resident of Village- Maksudanpur Bhadaiya Ward Number 05, P.O. -Mohiuddin Nagar, P.S. -Mohiuddin Nagar, District -Samastipur. 4.
Ram Prasad Sahni, aged about 76 years, Male, Son of Late Prem Chandra Sahni, Resident of Village- Maksudanpur Bhadaiya Ward Number 05, P.O. -Mohiuddin Nagar, P.S. -Mohiuddin Nagar, District -Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Mohiuddin Nagar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354, 354(B), 354(C), 354(D), 448, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, the allegation against
2/4 the petitioners and other co-accused persons named in the FIR is that they entered into the house of the informant armed with sticks, rods, bricks, tiles and assaulted the daughter of the informant and their family members and pulled informant's daughter with bad intention.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent have committed no offence and have falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. He submits that both the parties are agnates and the entire allegation levelled against the petitioners are false and fabricated. He further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. He next submits that according to the FIR, the petitioners are co-villagers of the informant. He lastly submits that the injuries are simple in nature and there is no any independent witness of the occurrence. Petitioner nos. 3 and 4 have clean antecedent, petitioner no. 1 has got one criminal antecedent and petitioner no. 2 has four criminal antecedents as stated in para 3 of the petition.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. From perusal of the FIR and the impugned order of
3/4 the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Samastipur dated 28.01.2026, it appears that on the basis of written report of the informant, FIR has been registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354, 354(B), 354(C), 354(D), 448, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against five co-accused persons including the present petitioners and the allegation against the petitioners are that they entered into the house of the informant armed with sticks, rods, bricks, tiles and assaulted the daughter of the informant and their family members and pulled informant's daughter with bad intention and click the photo of informant's daughter Sima Kumari and said that the photo of informant's daughter Sima Kumari were viral on Facebook.
The rejection of anticipatory bail application by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Samastipur is based on the basis of criminal antecedents but there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. Petitioner no. 1, is a lady and petitioner no. 4 is aged about 76 years as stated in title page of the bail application, so considering all these aspects of the case and submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the above named petitioners.
7. Accordingly, let both the petitioners above named,
4/4 in the event of their arrest or surrender before the trial Court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Sahpur Patory, Samastipur in connection with Mohiuddin Nagar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Anand Kr.
U T