Lalita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65851 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2019 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

LALITA DEVI W/o Prakash Yadav @ Jai Prakash Yadav R/o villageDhankadha, P.S.- Sasaram (Muffasil), District- Rohtas 2.

Madodara Devi W/o Late Ram Talika Singh R/o village- Dhankadha, P.S.- Sasaram (Muffasil), District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nagendra Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 26-11-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 74 of 2019 for the offence registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation is regarding the co-accused persons, namely, Prakash Yadav @ Jai Prakash Yadav and Keshav Yadav having assaulted the husband of the informant resulting in his subsequent death. The petitioners who are females are said to have also assaulted the informant and her daughter. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if at all anyone is having complicity in the present case, it is the coaccused Prakash Yadav @ Jai Prakash Yadav and Keshav Yadav,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65851 of 2019(3) dt.26-11-2019 2/2 however, the petitioners herein are not having any complicity in the matter of assault on the husband of the informant resulting in his death. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the case diary would show that there is no injury as far as the informant and her daughter are concerned, hence the allegation against the petitioners herein is false and concocted. The petitioners are stated to be having clean antecedents.

The learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, are directed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram in connection with Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 74 of 2019 subject to the conditions as stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U T