← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4908/2015dismissed

Rekha Kumari @ Rekha Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2016-02-03Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4908 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No. - 213 Year- 2013 Thana - SIRDALA District- NAWADA ======================================================

1. Rekha Kumari @ Rekha Devi wife of Vijay Pratap Resident of villageNeemchak Pasarhi, P.S-Meskaur (Sirdalla) District -Nawada

2. Kanchan Devi wife of Ram Nandan Prasad Resident of village - Raut Bigha Jhunathi, P.S-Muffasil, District -Nawada .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.4915 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No. - 213 Year- 2013 Thana - SIRDALA District- NAWADA ====================================================== Tek Narayan Prasad @ Tek Narayan Prasad Yadav son of Late Vidyadhar Prasad Yadav, resident of village Neemchak Pasarhi, P.S.-Meskaur (Sirdalla) District -Nawada .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

(In Cr.Misc. No.4908 of 2015) For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : APP (In Cr.Misc. No.4915 of 2015) For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 03-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. These petitions have been filed for modification of the order dated 21.10.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 23594 and 24340 of 2014 whereby and whereunder applications filed by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Sirdala

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4908 of 2015 (3) dt.03-02-2016 2/2 P.S. Case No. 213 of 2013 District Nawada under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code have been rejected by this Court.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is not satisfied that any case for modification has been made out. These modification petitions stand dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) B.T/- U T