Pramila Devi @ Pramila v. The State Of Bihar Hai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39245 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2021 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== 1.

PRAMILA DEVI @ PRAMILA wife of Anil Poddar Village- Hiratol Ward No-1, PS- Sahebpur Kamal Dist-Begusarai 2.

Gopal Kumar @ Gopal son of Anil Poddar Village- Hiratol Ward No-1, PSSahebpur Kamal Dist-Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 03-08-2023

1. None appears for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners in this application pray for bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case no. 183 of 2021 registered under sections 307, 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added subsequently.

3. As per the prosecution case, the four named accused persons including the two petitioners herein are said to have come variously armed and to have assaulted the informant and others. The informant died in course of treatment.

4. From contents of the petition it transpires that the case of the two petitioners is that they are innocent and have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39245 of 2023(2) dt.03-08-2023 2/2 been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR are false and concocted. There was no reason for the informant to have gone for treatment to a private doctor instead of going to the Sadar Hospital, Begusarai. The cause of false implication is land dispute between the parties. The petitioners have got clean antecedent.

5. Heard learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned APP for the State and having perused the record and taking into consideration that the two petitioners named in the FIR are said to have participated in the occurrence in which the informant died in course of treatment, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail and the application is rejected. (Partha Sarthy, J) Spd/- U T