Renu Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66674 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2025 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.
Renu Devi Wife of Late Nand Lal Ray Resident of Village - Phulvariya (Phulwariya, Fulwariya Jakhar), Ward No.- 14, P.S.- Rosera, District - Samastipur (Bihar).
2.
Pushpa Kumari @ Pushpa Devi Wife of Abhishek Kumar Ray Resident of Village - Phulvariya (Phulwariya, Fulwariya Jakhar), Ward No.- 14, P.S.- Rosera, District - Samastipur (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 113 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that the named accused persons including the petitioners along with four to five unknown persons were abusing the informant and when the same was protested they all assaulted him by fists, slaps and danda. It has further been
2/4 alleged that one co-accused, namely, Abhishek Kumar Ray gave knife blow on the head of the informant causing him grievous injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ladies and they are falsely been implicated in this case. It has next been submitted that the injuries sustained by the informant was found to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. It has further been submitted that the specific allegation of assault by knife was attributed to the co-accused, namely, Abhishek Kumar. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioners carry clean antecedents.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten 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
3/4 Rosera P.S. Case No. 113 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their close relative.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) 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 bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail
4/4 bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial. (Sourendra Pandey, J) aditya/- U T