Jhuniya Devi @ Jhuna Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56208 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2022 Thana- DHARHARA District- Munger ====================================================== JHUNIYA DEVI @ JHUNA DEVI W/o Uday Yadav R/o Village- Maharana, P.S.- Dharhara, District- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anish Chandra, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, APP Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 02-01-2023 Heard the parties.

The petitioner apprehend her arrest in connection with Dharhara P.S. Case no.79 of 2022, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 448, 366(A), 379, 504, 506/34, 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that she alongwith other co-accused persons took several items including cash and gold and silver ornaments from the house of the informant. It is further alleged that they abducted the minor daughter of the informant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. She has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56208 of 2022(2) dt.02-01-2023 2/2 the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is no specific overt act against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner and the informant are co-villagers and due to panchayat election, some altercation took place between them. The son of the petitioner is already in judicial custody. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that the victim is a minor and has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is specific allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on her behalf is hereby rejected. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

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