Ranjeet Sahni And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14992 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2018 Thana- SAKRI District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

Ranjeet Sahni, aged about 25 years, Male, Son of Parmeshwar Sahni 2.

Parmeshwar Sahni, aged about 40 years, Male, Son of Sitai Sahni Both resident of Village-Birsayar, P.S.-Sakri, District-Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ratanakar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sakri P.S. Case No. 169 of 2018, C.R.I. Case No. 2288 of 2018 registered for offences under sections 383, 341, 379, 354(B), 376, 511, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

In the present case, an allegation has been made that the accused persons used to tease the daughter of the Informant. The Informant protested for the same on which they became annoyed. On 22.6.2018 at about 8 O'clock, the Informant was going to bed along with her daughter. Ranjeet Sahni armed with Farsa and Parmeshwar Sahni armed with spear entered into the house and started to tease her. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14992 of 2019(2) dt.12-03-2019 2/2 accused persons tore her Belauze and they forcibly outraged her modesty. When the daughter came to save her mother, the accused persons also tore her trouser. They also damaged the articles kept in the house.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no such occurrence, as alleged in the complaint petition, has taken place and placed reliance on Annexure-2 which is the notice under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and further said that on account of some land dispute, the present case has been lodged against the petitioners.

Looking to the nature of allegation as alleged against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners, above named, is rejected.

If the petitioners surrender before the court below within a period of three weeks from today and pray for bail, the court below, without being prejudiced by this order, will take a decision in accordance with law.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- U T