Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11406/2016rejected

Shankar Sharma And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2016-05-24Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11406 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -60 Year- 2015 Thana -SIKTI District- ARRARIA ======================================================

1. Shankar Sharma Son of Late Gharu Sutihar

2. Saroj Sharma Son of Shankar Sharma

3. Manoj Sharma Son of Shankar Sharma

4. Anuj Sharma Son of Shankar Sharma

5. Anil Sharma Son of Shankar Sharma

6. Pramila Devi wife of Shankar Sharma

7. Mamta Devi wife of Saroj Sharma. All resident of Village- Aulabari, Police Station- Sikty, District- Araria.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Braj Kishore Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 24-05-2016 Heard both sides.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Sikty P.S. Case No. 60 of 2015 registered under sections 447, 341, 323, 379, 354(B), 325, 323, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

On the statement of the victim Minakshi Devi, the F.I.R. was lodged in which it is alleged that on account of grazing of the field by the she goat of petitioner no. 1, the accused persons came to the place of occurrence. Petitioner no. 1 started assaulting and made her half naked. Other accused persons on hulla came armed with lathi, danda and started assaulting her. Petitioner nos. 6 tied rope around her neck and tried to pull her. She received diverse

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11406 of 2016 (3) dt.24-05-2016 2/2 injuries and also started bleeding as she was pregnant. It is stated that both the parties are neighbours. The allegation is false lodged few days after the occurrence without there being valid explanation. Both parties have filed a kind of compromise petition in the Court.

Learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that the doctor found injuries on the person of the informant which supports the allegations levelled by her in the First Information Report. It further appears that an attempt to tamper with the evidence has been made by the petitioners.

Considering the allegations contained in the First Information Report, I am not persuaded to extend them privilege of anticipatory bail.

Prayer is, accordingly, rejected.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U