Sumitra Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26941 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2018 Thana- RISHIUP District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Sumitra Devi wife of Sunil Yadav resident of Village - Risiup, P.S. Risiup, Distt. - Aurangabad (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Risiup P.S. Case No. 11 of 2018 registered for offences under sections 341, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation made in the First Information Report, on 5.2.2018, the victim lady along with her husband, was putting foundation of her house, whereupon, the accused persons came there and objected the foundation and assaulted with lathi and rod to them.

The allegation against the petitioner is to have taken away the gold chain.

Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26941 of 2018(2) dt.04-05-2018 2/2 case and the fact that the petitioner is a lady, let the petitioner, namely, Sumitra Devi, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad (Bihar) in connection with Risiup P.S. Case No. 11 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also subject to condition that whenever the police will call the petitioner for investigation/interrogation, she will remain present and if she would not present herself, the privilege of grant of anticipatory bail shall be deemed to have been cancelled.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- U T