Jhunia Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28774 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2024 Thana- NIMACHANDPURA District- Begusarai ====================================================== 1.

Jhunia Devi W/O Dinesh Sahni Resident of village- Chandpura, P.S.- Neemachandpura, Dist.- Begusarai.

2.

Kazoma Devi @ Kajal Devi W/O Sanjeet Sahni Resident of villageChandpura, P.S.- Neemachandpura, Dist.- Begusarai. 3.

Dinesh Sahni S/O Bahadur Sahni Resident of village- Chandpura, P.S.- Neemachandpura, Dist.- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Braj Bhusan Poddar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh Mr. Sarvottam Kumar, Adv Mrs. Asmita Bharti, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-08-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 329(4), 109, 303(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are women. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that specific allegation of assaulting Anjali Devi is against Indal and Chhotu by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28774 of 2025(3) dt.13-08-2025 2/2 lathi on head causing injury.

4.

It is further submitted that as far as petitioners are concerned, the allegations against them are general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that though it is alleged that Jhuniya and Kajoma held Anjali Devi; and Dinesh forced her to eat excreta, but then the said allegation is alleged only to give seriousness to the case, as the informant does not allege that Anjali Devi ate the excreta. 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each 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 Neemachandpura P.S. Case No. 90 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T