Sudhir Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23297 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-594 Year-2022 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== 1.
SUDHIR KUMAR SON OF SIKANDAR YADAV @ SATYENDRA YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GIRIHINDA, PS- SHEIKHOPURA, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA 2.
AMARJIT KUMAR SON OF SIKANDAR YADAV @ SATYENDRA YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GIRIHINDA, PS- SHEIKHOPURA, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA 3.
SUDHA DEVI WIFE OF SIKANDAR YADAV @ SATYENDRA YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GIRIHINDA, PS- SHEIKHOPURA, DISTTSHEIKHPURA ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bipin Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 24-06-2023 At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present petition qua the petitioners no.1 and 2 in order to enable them to surrender before the learned Court below, within a period of four weeks from today and avail the privilege of regular bail. Permission so sought is granted.
The present petition stands dismissed qua the petitioners no.1 and 2.
Heard the learned counsel for the
2/4 petitioners and learned APP for the State.
This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No.594 of 2022, registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 379, 506, 504 and 34 of the IPC.
It is alleged that the accused persons, including the petitioners herein, had entered the house of the informant, whereafter they had assaulted the informant and her husband by iron rod, resulting in them receiving grievous injuries. The learned counsel for the petitioner no.3 has submitted that the petitioner no.3 is innocent, she has been falsely implicated in the present case and she is having a clean antecedent. The learned counsel for the petitioner no.3 has further submitted that as far as the petitioner no.3 is concerned, a general and omnibus allegation has been levelled and she being a lady, it cannot be visualized that she would have inflicted any strong iron blow on the person of either the informant or her husband, so as to cause any grievous injuries
3/4 upon them, hence atleast the petitioner no.3 be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, the learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the materials available on record as also considering the fact that the petitioner no.3 is a lady, having a clean antecedent and a general and omnibus allegation has been levelled qua her, I deem it fit and proper to admit the petitioner no.3 to the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the above named petitioner no.3 is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, in the event of her 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, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
4/4 Magistrate, Sheikhpura, in connection with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No.594 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) sonal/- U T