Vimla Devi @ Bimla Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.39068 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -172 Year- 2016 Thana -SHIVSAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Vimla Devi @ Bimla Devi Wife of Yogendra Chandrabanshi.
2. Yogendra Chandrabanshi. Son of Vishwanath Kahar, Both are resident of Village- Biyar Bandh, Police Station- Shiv Sagar, District- Rohtas.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar Choubey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Lakshmi Kant Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-09-2016 Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Lakshmi Kant Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
Two petitioners, apprehending their arrest in Sheosagar P.S. Case No. 172 of 2016 registered for the offence under Section 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504, 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code , have prayed for grant of bail in the event of arrest or surrender.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that a trivial dispute arose in between the parties and to give seriousness of the offence allegation has been made that petitioner no. 2 used 'farsa' and gave 'farsa' blow whereas allegation against
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39068 of 2016 (2) dt.20-09-2016 2/3 petitioner no. 1 has been made that she forcibly snatched golden chain from the neck of the informant. He submits that injury report does not corroborate the allegation whereas, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the prayer submits that in the F.I.R. there is specific accusation against the petitioner no. 2 regarding giving 'farsa' blow on the head of the husband of the informant as well as informant.
Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties I have perused the materials available on record particularly the F.I.R. After going through the allegation so far petitioner no. 2 is concerned the court is of the opinion that it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of petitioner no. 2 Yogendra Chandrabanshi stands rejected.
So far petitioner no. 1 is concerned it appears that it has been exaggerated that petitioner no. 1 had snatched a golden chain. Moreover, petitioner no. 1 is a lady. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, let the petitioner no. 1 namely Vimla Devi @ Bimla Devi be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand ) with two sureties of the like amount each
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39068 of 2016 (2) dt.20-09-2016 3/3 to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram at Rohtas / concerned court in connection with Sheosagar P.S. Case No. 172 of 2016 subject to the conditions as contemplated under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T