Rajnita Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38071 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-351 Year-2024 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Rajnita Devi W/O Ramesh Prasad @ Doctor Ramesh Prasad R/O VillageLal Saraiya, Gonda Semra, Police Station- Majhauliya, District- West Champaran 2.
Ramesh Prasad @ Doctor Ramesh Prasad S/O Shankar Mahto R/O VillageLal Saraiya, Gonda Semra, Police Station- Majhauliya, District- West Champaran 3.
Rajeev Ranjan Kumar S/O Ramesh Prasad @ Doctor Ramesh Prasad R/O Village- Lal Saraiya, Gonda Semra, Police Station- Majhauliya, DistrictWest Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastri, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 351 of 2024, dated 26.05.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per allegation, one of the accusedpetitioners/father-in-law of the informant snatched the child from the lap of the informant and threw him down on the earth and consequently the child sustained some injuries.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38071 of 2025(3) dt.08-10-2025 2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that as a matter of fact, there is matrimonial discord between the informant and the petitioner No.3 and one criminal case has been already going on for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and when the petitioners got bail in that case, the informant has further falsely implicated them in the present case. He further submits that there is no truth in the allegation.
5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioners have not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.
6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that the petitioners have one criminal antecedent.
7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioners for bail.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition is allowed, directing the petitioners, above-named, to be enlarged on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38071 of 2025(3) dt.08-10-2025 3/3 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned concerned Court Below, in connection with Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 351 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and on the following conditions:
(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioners have any criminal antecedents other than the disclosed one, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners after hearing them and getting satisfied that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents despite their knowledge of the same.
(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.) ravishankar/- U T