Rajni Devi @ Guddi Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 18769 OF 2020 =============================================================

1. Rajni Devi @ Guddi Devi, wife of Anirudh Tatma.

2. Anirudh Tatma, son of Late Mukru Tatma @ Late Mukru Das

3. Vijay Kumar Tatma @ Raja Kumar Tatma, son of Anirudh Tatma

4. Arun Kumar Anand, son of Late Mukru Tatma @ Late Mukru Das

5. Mahendra Tatma, son of Late Bal Krishna Tatma All are resident of village - Pothiya, Ward No. 10, Police Station - Bardaha, District -Araria.

....... ......Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar ===============================================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02.

16.07.2020 Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, learned counsel for the State. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Sikti P.S. Case No. 180 of 2019 dated 21.10.2019

instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504, 506, 354A, 354B and 354D/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been alleged in the First Information Report that one Mithilesh Kumar Tatma tried to outrage the modesty of prosecutrix. When this was complained against, the petitioners who are related to the aforesaid Mithilesh Kumar Tatma abused and assaulted the members of the prosecutrix party. Hence their prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations pertaining to offences under Sections 354 A to 354 D and others sections of the Indian Penal Code are only directed towards the aforesaid Mithilesh Kumar Tatma. The petitioners have been made accused in this case because of their being related to the aforesaid Mithilesh Kumar Tatma. It has further been submitted that there has been a settlement of dispute between the parties.

Earlier a complaint was filed against the husband, father in law and mother in law of the prosecutrix by petitioner no. 2 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The present case is only an offshoot of the aforesaid complaint case.

Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Araria in connection with Sikti P.S. Case No. 180 of 2019, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. .

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Sunil/- U T