Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35884/2024bail rejected

Sandhya Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-16Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35884 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2023 Thana- AMNAUR District- Saran ====================================================== Sandhya Devi Wife Of Rajesh Rai @ Gobardhan Rai Village- Dharhara Kalan, Ps- Amnour, Dist- Saran ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Amnaur P.S. Case No. 207 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner along with others is of brutally assaulted the informant and his family members due to which they sustained injury. It is further alleged that due to assault the father-in-law of the informant succumbed to injury.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The petitioner has nothing to do with the said occurrence and has no criminal antecedent. The occurrence took place on account of petty dispute. Learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35884 of 2024(2) dt.16-05-2024 2/2 petitioner further submits that petitioner had no intention to kill the father-in-law of the informant.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR and specific allegation of assault upon the father-in-law of the informant is against her, due to which he succumbed to injury. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that specific allegation of assault is against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected.

8. However, if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the Court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Arish/- U T