Babita Devi @ Babita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31296 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2024 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Babita Devi @ Babita Kumari W/o Pankaj Kumar R/o vill - Harinarayanpur, P.S. - Kudhani, Distt. - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No. Ii For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-08-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 353, 427, 420, 224, 225, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and the informant alleges that he received secret information that Pankaj Kumar, an accused of Cyber P.S. Case No.20/2023 was at home, accordingly, the police raided his house and apprehended Pankaj but then his family members came and became aggressive and started pelting stones at the police force and Pankan taking advantage of the situation fled. Thereafter additional police force was called when the accused persons including the petitioner fled away.
4. The learned counsel for the petitoner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31296 of 2024(4) dt.23-08-2024 2/2 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case being wife of Pankaj. It is next submitted that she has been implicated in order to coerce Pankaj into submission. It is also submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of chowkidar, when she was not even present at the place of occurrence. It is next submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will co-operate in the investigation.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his 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) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Kudhani P.S. Case No.46/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T