Tasarrun @ Bibi Tasarrun @ Tarasranna v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28163 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-388 Year-2019 Thana- JOKIHAT District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

TASARRUN @ BIBI TASARRUN @ TARASRANNA Wife of Md. Waris @ Waris 2.

Raisunia @ Esun Wife of Md. Mojeeb @ Mojeeb Both Residents of Village - Choukta, Ward no. 10, P.S.- Mahalgaon (Jokihat), District - Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anamul Haque For the Opposite Party/s :

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 12-01-2021 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Special Case No.1490 of 2019(Jokihat Mahalgaon P.S. Case No.388 of 2019) registered under Section 45 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 353, 379, 153, 332, 333, 225, 224 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that after having received the information that Md. Waris, the accused of Mahalgaon P.S. Case No.339 of 2019 was in the house, he and other police officials went to arrest him. Md. Waris after seeing the police started fleeing away. The petitioners and others assaulted the informant and bite the police officials.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28163 of 2020(3) dt.12-01-2021 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and they have in fact committed no offence. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case. The petitioners did not assault any of the police officials. All the allegations are false and concocted but from perusal of the case diary, it appears that petitioner No.1 is the wife of Md. Waris who is alleged to have bite the informant. The petitioner No.2 also assaulted the informant and other police officials who got injuries.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid and nature of allegation made against the petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

If the petitioners surrender in the court below, learned court below shall consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T