Savitri Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38345 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -196 Year- 2015 Thana -BARAUNI District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Savitri Devi wife of Upendra Chaudhary

2. Puja Devi wife of of Arbind Chaudhary Both R/o Village Garhara ward No. 11, P.S. Barauni Garhara, District Begusarai. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Chandan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-11-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant specifically alleged that Govind Chaudhary kidnapped his minor daughter while she was going to attend tuition class along with her brothers Alok Kumar and Prince Kumar. When the informant went to the house of the petitioners, the petitioners and others are alleged to have abused and assaulted him. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ladies and they have been falsely been implicated in the case. They were present in their house when the informant came to enquire about his daughter, but the victim came and made her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and disclosed that Govind Chaudhary

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38345 of 2015 (3) dt.06-11-2015 2/2 kidnapped her. The petitioners were also standing near the Boloro jeep and thereafter Govind Chaudhary and Arbind Chaudhary took her to different places. It is further submitted that the statement appears to be tutored on the face of it, as the informant very categorically stated that immediately after the occurrence when he went to the house of the petitioners they were present in the house.

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that the petitioners are ladies and immediately after the occurrence when the informant went to enquire about his daughter at the house of the petitioners, the petitioners were present there, the petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Barauni P.S. Case No. 196 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T