Chhoti Kumari @ Namrata Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68385 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2025 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.

Chhoti Kumari @ Namrata Kumari Daughter of Vijay Prasad Resident of Village - Parwati, P.S.- Shahpur, District - Nawada. 2.

Ripu Devi Wife of Vijay Prasad Resident of Village - Parwati, P.S.- Shahpur, District - Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-12-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..

3. As per prosecution case, son of informant, namely Jahangir, was in love affair with co-accused Amrita Kumari and it is alleged that on 04.02.2025, co-accused Amrita Kumari called the son of informant for taking her sister, namely Chhoti Kumari, for examination and thereafter, all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners, killed the son of informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68385 of 2025(4) dt.03-12-2025 2/2

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. Petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that they, along with other accused persons, killed the son of informant. During course of investigation, sufficient material evidence has come to suggest that all the accused persons, including these petitioners, killed the deceased. In the post mortem report, the cause of death is due to Asphyxia due to hyoid bone fracture.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence and materials that have surfaced during course of investigation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T