Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74106 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-440 Year-2023 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

Sunita Devi Wife of Khaltu Ray @ Khalas Ray Resident of Khoksa Rasalpur, Ward No. 4, P.O.- Bombaiya Harlal Panchayat, P.S.- Anchal Dalsinghsarai, District- Samastipur 2.

Khaltu Ray @ Khalas Ray Son of Jagdish Ray Resident of Khoksa Rasalpur, Ward No. 4, P.O.- Bombaiya Harlal Panchayat, P.S.- Anchal Dalsinghsarai, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashi Kant, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 05-12-2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Dalsinghsarai P.S. Case No. 440 of 2023, lodged on 05.11.2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 302, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against nine named accused persons including the present petitioners against whom there is allegation that all the accused persons, in connivance with each other, have killed the maternal grand father of the informant. It is further alleged that they also assaulted the informant and his brother.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74106 of 2024(2) dt.05-12-2024 2/2

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Counsel further submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners rather the allegation is general and omnibus in nature. Counsel further submits that there is land dispute in between the parties and due to dirty village politics the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel also submits that the criminal antecedents of the petitioners are clean.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Aman Kumar/- U T