Jugnu Paveen @ Juganu Praween v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70895 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2022 Thana- SINGHESHWAR District- Madhepura ====================================================== JUGNU PAVEEN @ JUGANU PRAWEEN W/O MD. JASIM @ MOHAMMAD JASIM VILLAGE- MADHEPURA, WARD NO. 13, PS. AND DIST. MADHEPURA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rupesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Sucheta Yadav, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 233 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 363, 379, 384, 419, 420, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, all the accused persons including the petitioner are said to have been involved in running 'Madhepura Normal Delivery Centre, Jhitkiya (Madhepura)' illegally, which came to light on the basis of complaint made by one victim.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. She has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70895 of 2023(3) dt.05-02-2024 2/2 falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. She has no concern with the said clinic. She was not working as nurse in the said clinic. The real fact is that she is studying in N.M. Mithila Institute & College, Bhagalpur. She has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is ample material in the case diary to indicate the complicity of the petitioner in the present case. Hence, she does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seeks regular bail, the learned Court below shall pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T