Monika Kumari @ Jyoti Priya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52489 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-559 Year-2024 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE District- Madhepura ====================================================== 1.

Monika Kumari @ Jyoti Priya W/o Akesh Kumar @ Chhotu Yadav Resident at Jay Prakash Nagar, Ward No-06, P.S.- Madhepura, District- Madhepura. 2.

Priti Kumari @ Prity Kumari W/o Gautam Kumar Resident at Jay Prakash Nagar, Ward No-06, P.S.- Madhepura, District- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Raj Kumar @ Ajay Kumar S/o Late Chandeshwari Yadav Resident at Jay Prakash Nagar, Ward No-06, P.S.- Madhepura, District- Madhepura. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv Mr. Isha Mishra, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 303(2), 76, 115(2), 126(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners and the other co-accused persons are alleged to have assaulted the complainant by means of Dabia due to which he sustained grievous injury. When the wife and son of the complainant came to save the complainant, all the accused persons started assaulting them by lathi-danda and they took away Mangalsutra

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52489 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 2/3 worth Rs. 50,000/- from the neck of the complainant's wife.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is next submitted that from mere perusal of the complaint petition there is no serious allegation against the petitioner rather the allegation is general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that the complainant had admitted to the Court during S.A. that he had land dispute with the co-accused Arvind Kumar. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has clean antecedent whereas the petitioner no. 2 has one criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Madhepura, in connection with Complaint Case No. 559 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharitya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), with further condition/s:-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52489 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 3/3 (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.

(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the Court below, if so required by the learned Trial Court.

(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioners will be liable to be canceled by the Court concerned.

(iv) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of the same or in the name of verification.

7. This application stands allowed.

(Sourendra Pandey, J) Jyoti/- U T