Anju Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29797 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2019 Thana- NATWAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

Anju Devi Aged about 33 years Wife of Anil Singh Resident of Village - Khairahi, P.S.- Natwar, District - Rohtas.

2.

Sarita Devi aged about 35 years Wife of Pavan Kumar Singh Resident of Village - Khairahi, P.S.- Natwar, District - Rohtas. 3.

Nanjharo Devi aged about 52 years Wife of Surendra Singh Resident of Village - Khairahi, P.S.- Natwar, District - Rohtas. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr.Sada Nand Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-12-2020 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw pre-arrest bail petition in respect of petitioner no.3 Nanjharo Devi.

Bail petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of petitioner no.3 Nanjharo Devi.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners no. 1 and 2 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through Video conferencing.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29797 of 2020(2) dt.15-12-2020 2/3 for the offence punishable under Sections 363,365/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution's case in short is that on 18.12.2019 informant's daughter was found missing from the house. In course of search, informant learnt that his daughter was abducted by the accused persons including the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the FIR has been lodged after six days of occurrence without any cogent explanation of delay. The victim in her section 164 Cr.P.C. statement has not alleged any wrong doing against these petitioners and thrust of allegation is against coaccused Rahul. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail submitting that the victim in her aforesaid statement has alleged that the petitioners took her to market from where she was abducted by Rahul.

Considering the facts of the case as well as the statement of the victim, prayer for pre-arrest bail of petitioners no.1 and 2 is allowed. In the event of arrest/surrender within eight weeks, let the petitioners no. 1 & 2, named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29797 of 2020(2) dt.15-12-2020 3/3 satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Rohtas at Sasaram in Natwar Police Station Case No. 95/2019, subject to the conditions laid down under sections 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T