← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31772/2016dismissed

Sushila Devi And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar

2016-08-24Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 31772 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -23 Year- 2016 Thana -HARLAKHI District- MADHUBANI ======================================================

1. Sushila Devi W/o Nathuni Mehtar

2. Sita Devi W/o Late Chandar Mehtar

3. Kaushaliya Devi W/o Mahendra Mehtar

4. Mahendra Mehtar S/o Late Ram Charitar Mehtar

5. Pramod Mehtar S/o Mahendra Mehtar All are residents of Village- Bishaul Tole, Ranipatti, Police StationHarlakhi, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

24-08-2016 Heard Sri Anant Kumar Bhaskar, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Five petitioners, apprehending their arrest in Harlakhi P.S. Case No. 23 of 2016 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 509, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain)Practices Act, 1999, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that there was case and counter case. By way of referring to Annexure - 2, it was submitted that from the petitioners' side, an F.I.R. was lodged against the informant side, whereas, on going through the Annexure - 2, it is evident that the said F.I.R. was lodged on

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31772 of 2016 (2) dt.24-08-2016 2/2 19-02-2016 for offences under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 379, 354(B), 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereas, the present F.I.R. was lodged on 13-02-2016, in which, petitioners have been made accused. Accordingly, there is no ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The petition stands dismissed.

If petitioners appear before the court below within a period of six weeks from today and make a prayer for regular bail, the learned court below, without being prejudiced with this order, may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T