Methi Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.54472 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -316 Year- 2014 Thana -RUNISAIDPUR District- SITAMARHI ======================================================
1. Methi Devi W/o Surendra Paswan.
2. Vinod Paswan S/o Nathuni Paswan
3. Arun Paswan S/o Surendra Paswan.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amrendra Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-12-2015 Initially, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.2, Vinod Paswan, has been apprehended.
Hence, this application, with respect to him has now become infructuious, and is, accordingly, disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in the husband's name of petitioner no.1.
Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.
Petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are apprehending arrest in a case
2/4 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 324, 332, 333, 353, 307, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case is that the informant being the police officer was going towards village Madhoul to investigate Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No.310 of 2014 and 315 of 2014 when Sudhir Kumar Singh snatched the key of the vehicle from the driver of the informant and abused them. When the informant persuaded then Sudhir Kumar Singh called others when Umakant Singh and another came they tore uniform of the informant and snatched Rs.500/- and articles and also damaged the government vehicles.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that accusation is not specific against the petitioners. The entire accusation is fabricated as the informant being the police officer happens to be relative of one Bachcha Singh. Bachcha Singh earlier filed Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No.108 of 2014 levelling accusation under section 366A and others sections of the IPC for kidnapping of his daughter, Bharti Kumari. Bachcha Singh named several persons but subsequently, the victim got her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. to the effect that she voluntarily left her house and none had kidnapped her and
3/4 she has solemnized marriage with one Deepak Kumar. It is further submitted that one Randhir Kumar Singh, son of Nand Kishor Singh, filed Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No. 501/2014 in which Chanchal Kumar and others at the instance of Bachcha Singh and others made indiscriminate firing while Randhir Kumar Singh, his brother, Sudhir Singh and sister-in-law (bhabhi) were returning after attending the court proceedings. Sister-in-law of Randhir Kumar Singh died on the spot and Sudhir Singh, brother of Randhir Kumar Singh, receoved fire arm injuries. It is further submitted that accusation is not specific against petitioner nos. 1 and 3 and co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.23012 of 2015. Moreover, a statement has been made in paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.
Considering the aforesaid facts, let the above named petitioners (except petitioner no.2) be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of `10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Sitamarhi in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.316 of
4/4 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/- U T