Savitri Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70521 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2017 Thana- CHANDRAMANDI District- Jamui ====================================================== SAVITRI DEVI Wife of Nepali Singh Resident of Village - Dadhava, P.S. - Chandramandih, District - Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akash Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 448, 323, 324, 307, 354(B), 380, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a woman having clean antecedent and the informant alleges that petitioner assaulted her by a tangi causing injury on her head.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, it is next submitted that no doubt the order impugned records that the injury suffered by the informant was grievous in nature but

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70521 of 2021(2) dt.28-07-2022 2/3 then it appears to be a manipulated injury report. Learned counsel further submits that the date of occurrence is 18.07.2017 and the informant filed a complaint on 25.07.2017 i.e., after a delay of seven days and then the FIR came to be instituted on 12.09.2017, as such the FIR came to be instituted nearly about two months after the occurrence. It is further submitted that if what is alleged in the FIR is true then the informant would have rushed to the hospital and there her statement would have been recorded by the police in view of the injury suffered but she chose to institute complaint case which amply demonstrates that she was trying to purchase time for falsely implicating the petitioner.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Chandramandi P.S.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70521 of 2021(2) dt.28-07-2022 3/3 Case No. 95 of 2017 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Shivam/- U T