Laxmina Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69261 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2025 Thana- AGIAON District- Bhojpur ====================================================== 1.
Laxmina Devi W/o Ramlakhan Singh Resident of Village- Sheopur, P.S.- Agiaon, Garhani, District- Bhojpur 2.
Upendra Singh S/o Ram Lakhan Singh Resident of Village- Sheopur, P.S.- Agiaon, Garhani, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raju Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Informant :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 26-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Agiaon Garhani P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025 dated 28.05.2025 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 118(1), 117(2) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that on account of previous dispute with regard to a piece of land, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons assaulted the informant. It is further alleged that the coaccused Mahesh Singh assaulted with Farsa on the head of one Ankit Kumar and Upendra Singh also assaulted with Ramee on
2/4 the informant causing fracture of his fingers. It is next alleged that Ramlakhan Singh also assaulted the wife of the informant by means of an iron rod due to which she also sustained injuries on her head. During scuffle Ekta Kumari also assaulted the informant with Bricks due to which he suffered head injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated and from the perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is no specific overt act alleged against them. It is further submitted that the manner of occurrence is not supported by the injuries as there is only two injury reports on record which are not attributed to the petitioners. It is next submitted that petitioner no. 1 is a lady aged 69 years, while Upendra Singh/petitioner no. 2 is the son of Ram Lakhan Singh a co-accused. There is a counter case also.
5. learned APP has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and has stated that the petitioners along with other accused persons have assaulted the informant and others causing grievous injuries.
6. Considering the facts aforesaid and taking into account the fact that there is no specific act of attribution against the petitioners, they are directed to be released on bail, in the
3/4 event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VIII, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Agiaon Garhani P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the BNSS and subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners;
(ii) the petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the Court below, if so required by the learned Trial Court;
(iii) in case of absence on two consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioners will liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned; (iv) the 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 bonds of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms
4/4 of the above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of the same on in the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial. (Sourendra Pandey, J) krishna/- U T