Pinki Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24738 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

Pinki Devi Wife Of Amarjeet Kumar Resident Of Village- Kaijiya Bhishapur, Ps- Tajpur, Op Baini, Dist- Samastipur 2.

Gayatri Devi @ Gayatri Kumari Wife Of Dhanichandra Pandit Resident Of Village- Kaijiya Bhishapur, Ps- Tajpur, Op Baini, Dist- Samastipur 3.

Vibha Devi @ Vibha Kumari Wife Of Krishna Kumar Resident Of VillageKaijiya Bhishapur, Ps- Tajpur, Op Baini, Dist- Samastipur 4.

Indrajeet Pandit @ Indrajeet Kumar Son Of Dhanichandra Pandit Resident Of Village- Kaijiya Bhishapur, Ps- Tajpur, Op Baini, Dist- Samastipur 5.

Krishna Kumar Son Of Dhanichandra Pandit Resident Of Village- Kaijiya Bhishapur, Ps- Tajpur, Op Baini, Dist- Samastipur 6.

Dhanichandra Pandit Son Of Ran Awatar Pandit Resident Of VillageKaijiya Bhishapur, Ps- Tajpur, Op Baini, Dist- Samastipur 7.

Amarjeet Kumar @ Amarjeet Pandit Son Of Dhanichandra Pandit Resident Of Village- Kaijiya Bhishapur, Ps- Tajpur, Op Baini, Dist- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 341, 313, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is alleged that co-accused Munchun Kumar established physical relationship with the informant on the pretext of marriage.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24738 of 2024(2) dt.24-04-2024 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that specific accusation is against co-accused Munchun Kumar and petitioners have been made accused in this case merely because they happen to be family members of co-accused Munchun Kumar. Petitioners are only alleged to have opposed the marriage of co-accused Munchun Kumar with the informant. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. Considering the nature of accusation, this anticipatory bail is allowed and it is ordered that let the above named petitioners in the event of their arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from today, 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 Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in connection with Mahila P. S. Case No. 02 of 2024, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T