Parvilla Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54359 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-514 Year-2019 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda ====================================================== PARVILLA DEVI WIFE OF SADAN MAHTO R/O VILLAGE- PANCHSIL NAGAR NIYAMATPUR, P.S.- HARNAUT, DISTRICT- NALANDA (BIHAR). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Lal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 23-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within four weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Harnaut P.S. Case No. 514 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Nalanda at Biharsharif.

The petitioner in association of co-accused Rakku Kumar is said to have stolen Rs.4,80,000/- and all the silver and gold ornaments from his house.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54359 of 2021(2) dt.23-06-2022 2/2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. She has been falsely implicated in this case due to property dispute as she is own gotiya of the informant. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is no recovery either from the possession or from the house of the petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, she does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T