Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40087/2021rejected

Rampukari Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2022-04-12Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40087 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-238 Year-2020 Thana- KHODAWANDPUR District- Begusarai ====================================================== 1.

RAMPUKARI DEVI Wife of Shri Ram Naresh Mahto Resident of Village - Fafaut, P.S.- Khaodawandpur, District - Begusarai 2.

Santosh Kumar Son of Shri Ram Naresh Mahto Resident of Village - Fafaut, P.S.- Khaodawandpur, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shivam For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 12-04-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Khodawandpur P.S. Case No. 238 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 307, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to admitted land dispute. Petitioners have no concern with the alleged occurrence. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40087 of 2021(3) dt.12-04-2022 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioners are named accused in the first information report and there is allegation of assault against them which led to the death of the deceased. Petitioners, therefore, do not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail. Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T