Punam Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34626 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -38 Year- 2016 Thana -BADHAILA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Punam Devi, wife of Ambika Singh,

2. Sangita Devi, wife of Baliram Singh

3. Shobha Devi, wife of Balika Singh, All residents of Village- Chanaki, P.S. Baghaila, District-Rohtas. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinay Raj For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Akshay Lal Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-09-2016 Heard Sri D.K.Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Sri Abhinay Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Akshay Lal Pandit, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel, who has voluntarily appeared on behalf of the informant. Three petitioners, who are ladies, apprehending their arrest in Baghaila P.S. Case No.38/2016 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, have prayed for grant of bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender..

By way of referring to the F.I.R., it was submitted

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34626 of 2016 (2) dt.08-09-2016 2/2 by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that there is only allegation against the petitioners that they arrived with other accused persons and entered into premises of the informant. He submits that save and except the aforesaid allegation, there is no allegation of committing any overt act against the petitioners and, as such, a prayer is being made for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submit that in the F.I.R. itself, there is sufficient material to reject the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused materials on record as well as F.I.R. After going through the same, I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T