Sita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34704 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2021 Thana- DIDARGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

SITA DEVI WIFE OF SAMBHU SINGH R/O VILLAGE- RAIBAGH, P.S.- DIDARGANJ, DISTRICT- PATNA 2.

SINKI KUMARI WIFE OF MANGRU SINGH R/O VILLAGERAIBAGH, P.S.- DIDARGANJ, DISTRICT- PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Soni Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 27-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of resumption of normal court proceedings. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within stipulated period, office will place the matter before the Bench. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 8(c), 20(B), 29 of N.D.P.S. Act.

Allegedly, 49.42 kg substance like Ganja has been recovered from the house of the petitioners.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34704 of 2022(2) dt.27-09-2022 2/2 They have been falsely implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The allegation leveled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. They have been made accused in the present case as the petitioners are the wife of co-accused Sambhu Singh and coaccused Mangru Singh. No incriminating articles has been recovered from their conscious possession. there is no violation of section 100 of Cr.P.C. Petitioners do not reside in the said house and they are neither the owner of the house. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent, which is also mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on their behalf is hereby rejected.

This application is accordingly, dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T