Manju Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47941 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2023 Thana- MATIHANI District- Begusarai ====================================================== Manju Devi Wife Of Suresh Roy Resident Of Village -RACHIYAHI Purana Tola, Ward No 9, Ps- Matihani, District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 11-08-2023 1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Matihani P.S. Case No.42 of 2023, registered for offences under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506, 307, 379/34 of the IPC.

3.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the informant, is that two years back, he had given a sum of Rs.2 lakh to the co-accused

2/4 person, namely, Mritunjay Kumar by way of loan, however, when he did not return the money, the informant had asked him for the money, whereupon, the co-accused person, namely, Bullet Kumar had called the informant to his home to take his money after settling the accounts, whereafter the informant had gone to the house of the co-accused person namely Suresh Rai where all the accused persons were present and then they are alleged to have assaulted the informant with lathi and danda (stick).

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent, she has been falsely implicated in the present case and she is having a fair antecedent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is an elderly women aged about 51 years old and no specific allegation has been levelled against her of her having assaulted the informant, hence she be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

5.

Per contra, the learned APP for the State

3/4 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the materials available on record as also considering the fact that a general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against the petitioner and as far as the petitioner is concerned, she has not been alleged to have engaged in any sort of specific overtact qua the informant, I deem it fit and proper to admit the petitioner to the privilege of anticipatory bail. 7.

Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in connection with Matihani P.S. Case No.42 of 2023, subject to the

4/4 conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) kanchan/- U T