Anjali Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23088 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2020 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj ====================================================== ANJALI DEVI W/o Mukesh Yadav @ Sadhu Yadav, Daughter of Vinod Yadav, Resident of Village- Umar Mathiya, P.S.- Manjha Garh Distt.- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar No1, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Setu Prateek, Advocate Mr. Rajkishore Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-09-2020 Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar No. 1, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Setu Prateek , learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Rajkishore Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State through video conferencing. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 46 of 2020 registered for the offence under Section 341, 323, 307, 302, 504/34 of the I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner with other family members assaulted the informant, his brother and mother by means of Lathi, Danda, Bhala and Farsha. It has also been alleged that Mukesh Yadav fired from his licensed gun upon the brother -in- law of the informant,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23088 of 2020(2) dt.08-09-2020 2/3 resulting in his death.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the First Information Report it would be evident that there was a land dispute between both the parties, who are agnates. Learned counsel further submits that from perusal of the First Information Report it would also be evident that there is specific allegation of firing upon the co-accused Mukesh Yadav and no overt act has been attributed against the petitioner, who is wife of the co-accused Mukesh Yadav .

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that all the accused persons assaulted the informant and his family members and petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the fact that specific allegation of firing is upon the co-accused Mukesh Yadav, there is land dispute between the parties , petitioner is lady member of the family and she is in custody since 16th February, 2020, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, let the petitioner, above named, be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000 /- (twenty five thousand ) with two sureties of the like amount

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23088 of 2020(2) dt.08-09-2020 3/3 each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M.- Gopalganj / court concerned in connection with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 46 of 2020 .

It is made clear at the time of furnishing bail bond all the parties shall follow the guidelines regarding lockdown and social distancing.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T