Sanju Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64698 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2022 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

SANJU DEVI Wife of Vikash Mahto Resident of Village- Sirisiya, P.S.- Chanpatia(Sirisiya), District- West Champaran 2.

MUNI DEVI @ MUNNI DEVI Wife of Yadavlal Mahto @ Yadolal Mahto Resident of Village- Sirisiya, P.S.- Chanpatia(Sirisiya), District- West Champaran 3.

DILIP KUMAR @ DILIP MAHTO Son of Yadavlal Mahto @ Yadolal Mahto Resident of Village- Sirisiya, P.S.- Chanpatia(Sirisiya), District- West Champaran 4.

VIKASH MAHTO Son of Lalbabu Mahto Resident of Village- Sirisiya, P.S.- Chanpatia(Sirisiya), District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 307, 324 and some other ancillary Sections of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, petitioner No.1 and 4 are alleged to have assaulted the informant with iron pump and Lathi whereas petitioner No.3 and 4 assaulted Lalmuni Devi with Lathi.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64698 of 2022(2) dt.17-03-2023 2/2 the case. It is submitted that injuries caused by petitioner No.2 and 3 have been found to be simple injury whereas injuries caused by petitioner No.1 and 4 have been found to be grievous in nature. Petitioners have got clean antecedent. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner No.1 and 4 have caused grievous injuries, their prayer for anticipatory bail is refused.

Considering the fact that injuries cased by petitioner No.2 and 3 have been found to be simple in nature and they have got clean antecedent, let the petitioners, No.2 and 3 above named, in the event of their arrest/ surrender within a period of six weeks from today shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah in connection with Chanpatia (Sirisiya) PS case No. 225/ 2022, subject to conditions laid down u/s 438(2) of the Cr. P. C. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) BKS/- U T