Sangita Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60514 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2024 Thana- TETERHAT District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.
Sangita Devi W/o Satish Mahto R/o Village - Near S. P Kothi Lakhisarai, P.S - Lakhisarai, District - Lakhisarai 2.
Muso Mahto @ Bhuso Mahto S/o Late Ram Chandra Mahto R/o Village - Near S. P Kothi Lakhisarai, P.S - Lakhisarai, District - Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-09-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, on 22.04.2024, when informant was going home, in the meantime, all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners and two unknown persons, intercepted him and co-accused Satish Mahto fired upon the informant which hit on his left leg.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60514 of 2025(2) dt.08-09-2025 2/3 behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. From bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is apparent that specific accusation of causing fire arm injury is against co-accused Satish Mahto. So far as these petitioners are concerned, there is absolutely no allegation of overt act against them. As a matter of fact, Petitioner No. 1 is own sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the informant and Petitioner No. 2 is father of Petitioner No. 1 and they have falsely been implicated in this case due to family dispute which is going on between husband of Petitioner No. 1, namely Satish Mahto and informant.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, relationship between the parties and general and omnibus nature of accusation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named petitioners be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60514 of 2025(2) dt.08-09-2025 3/3 Magistrate, Lakhisarai in connection with Tetarhat P.S. Case No. 70 of 2024, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T