Manita Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25055 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2024 Thana- SALAIYA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.
Manita Devi W/o Late Sahendra Bhuiyan R/o Village- Hari Bigha, P.S.- Salaiya, District- Aurangabad 2.
Premni Devi W/o Raj Baban Bhuiyan R/o Village- Hari Bigha, P.S.- Salaiya, District- Aurangabad 3.
Ritu Raj Bhuiyan S/o Late Suryadeo Yadav R/o Village- Hari Bigha, P.S.- Salaiya, District- Aurangabad 4.
Raj Baban Bhuiyan S/o Ritu Raj Bhuiyan R/o Village- Hari Bigha, P.S.- Salaiya, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Mukul Kumari, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-05-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State Mr. Ravindra Kumar.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1) of the B.N.S.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no. 1 and 2 are women and the informant alleges that on account of dispute relating to papers of land, the accused persons came and Raj Baban and Sahendra assaulted the informant by rod causing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25055 of 2025(2) dt.05-05-2025 2/3 injury on head, further Raj Baban assaulted informant's son by rod causing injury on head, the learned counsel for the petitioners next draws the attention of the Court to page-17 of the F.I.R. to submit that in the F.I.R. Raj Baban Bhuiyan is accused no.3 but in the allegation part, it has been alleged that it was Ram Baban Bhuiyan and Sahendra Bhuiyan, who assaulted but then it is submitted that Ram Baban Bhuiyan and Raj Baban Bhuiyan are the same person. It is next submitted that allegation against petitioner no.1, 2 and 3 is general and omnibus in nature while petitioner no.4 is alleged to have assaulted the informant and his son. It is next submitted that from the side of the petitioners Salaiya P.S. Case No.90/2024 came to be instituted, in which brother of the petitioner no.4 was killed in which informant and his family members are an accused. It is next submitted that the instant case has been instituted only to coerce the petitioners into submission so that they do not depose in Salaiya P.S. Case No.90/2024.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that Raj Baban is alleged to have assaulted the informant and his son by rod causing injury on their head which is vital part of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25055 of 2025(2) dt.05-05-2025 3/3 body and the opinion with regard to the injury is reserved.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner no.1, 2 and 3 in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Salaiya P.S. Case No.91/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
6. However, the Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.4, namely, Raj Baban Bhuiyan as such his anticipatory bail application is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T