Saroj Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15343 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-608 Year-2020 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

SAROJ DEVI W/o Upendra Singh Resident of Village - Ash Nagar, P.s.- Kanti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

2.

Upendra Singh Son of Late Awadh Singh @ Awadh Narayan Singh Resident of Village - Ash Nagar, P.s.- Kanti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. 3.

Surendra Singh Son of Late Awadh Singh @ Awadh Narayan Singh Resident of Village - Ash Nagar, P.S.- Kanti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. 4.

Ramekbal Rai Son of Babu Lal Rai Resident of Village - Ash Nagar, P.S.- Kanti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 08-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 504 and 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

Allegation against the petitioners and other accused persons is that they were threatening to the informant to register his land in the name of the accused persons on the very low cost and in condition of non-fulfilment of the demand, they assaulted and snatched Rs.13,000/- and also the gold items worth Rs.45,000/-.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15343 of 2022(2) dt.08-09-2022 2/2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that there is land dispute between the parties and the petitioners and informant are full brothers. He further submits that after completing the investigation, the case was not found true under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by the superior officer and nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Considering the aforesaid submissions, let the petitioners, above named in the event of their 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM-II (West)-cumSub Judge, Muzaffarpur in connection with Kanti P.S. Case No. 608 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