← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58303/2021rejected

Anjira Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2022-07-11Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58303 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2021 Thana- BARBIGHA District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== ANJIRA DEVI W/o Brijnandan Mahto, Resident of Village - Rupaspur, Distt.- Nalanda, at Present - Resident of Mohalla - Hanuman Nagar, P.s.- Barbigha, Distt.- Sheikhpura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Ranjan Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 11-07-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Barbigha P.S. Case No. 17/2021 registered for offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 41, 42, 43 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.

As per allegation, the petitioner was running illegal nursing home and as per direction of the Medical Officer, her nursing home was raided.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58303 of 2021(2) dt.11-07-2022 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working as maid in the above-mentioned nursing home.

The name of nursing home shows clearly that it was on the name of the present petitioner. The submission appears to be false prima facie and the petitioner, as per FIR, appears owner of that nursing home.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly her prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T