Priyanka Pandey @ Priya Pandey And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.25660 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -240 Year- 2014 Thana -BAGHA District- WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) ======================================================
1. Priyanka Pandey @ Priya Pandey W/o Muni Pandey
2. Puspa Devi W/o Jhunnu Pathak
3. Puja Pathak D/o Jhunnu Pathak
4. Santosh Pathak S/o Jhunnu Pathak
5. Jhunnu Pathak @ Kamal Pathak S/o Tribhuwan Nath Pathak All resident of village- Malkauli, P.S.- Bagaha, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.D.Singh Yadav, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 20-07-2015 Heard both sides.
The petitioners, five in number, apprehend their arrest in a case under Sections 341, 447, 323, 324, 379 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioners are alleged to have assaulted the wife of the informant and also snatched her ornaments. Submission is that Bagaha (Pathkhauli) P.S. Case No. 239/14 is the counterversion. The petitioners are neighbours of the informant. No specific allegation is made against petitioner no. 1 Priyanka Pandey @ Priya Pandey, petitioner no. 2 Puspa Devi and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25660 of 2015 (2) dt.20-07-2015 2/3 petitioner no. 3 Puja Pathak, who are ladies. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant submits that of course, the petitioners are neighbours but earlier a case was lodged against the petitioners and they did not surrender in the court even after having been granted bail. The petitioners have got criminal antecedents.
Having considered the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegations made against the petitioner nos. 4 & 5, namely, Santosh Pathak and Jhunnu Pathak @ Kamal Pathak, I am not inclined to enlarge the above named petitioner nos. 4 & 5 on anticipatory bail in Bagaha (Pathkhauli) P.S. Case No. 240/2014. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
So far as the case of petitioner no. 1 Priyanka Pandey @ Priya Pandey, petitioner no. 2 Puspa Devi and petitioner no. 3 Puja Pathak are concerned, considering the fact that they are ladies and no specific allegation is made against them, the above named petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 3, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Bagaha, West Champaran in
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25660 of 2015 (2) dt.20-07-2015 3/3 Bagaha (Pathkhauli) P.S. Case No. 240/2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T