Ramashray Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.26842 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -19 Year- 2018 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Ramashray Singh, son of Late Bahadur Singh,
2. Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar, son of Ramashray Singh
3. Sumitra Devi, wife of Ramashray Singh
4. Kiran Devi @ Rina Devi, daughter of Ramashray Singh, All are resident of Village- Gopi Bigha, P.S.- Dihri, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Ansarul Haque, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2018 instituted for the offence under Sections 353, 354, 341, 342 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The First Information Report has been lodged by ASI of Mahila Police, Dihri, alleging that she went to the house of this petitioner for recording statement of Puja Devi who was confined in a room by her in-laws. Puja Devi started weeping when informant entered into the room. She stated that she will give her statement in the Police Station. It is alleged that when the informant tried to take away Puja Devi with her to police station
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26842 of 2018 (3) dt.19-06-2018 2/3 accused persons as named in the First Information Report stopped the vehicle and caused obstruction in discharging official duty. The informant gave information to the Officer-in-Charge who arrived on the spot and then the police along with Puja Devi reached police station.
The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are father-in-law and husband of Puja Devi. Puja Devi has earlier filed case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against her husband and his family members. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely, Ramashray Singh and Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar, who are father-inlaw and husband of Puja Devi. Prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby rejected.
So far petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, they are mother-in-law and Nanad of Puja Devi. They are ladies. There is no allegation of any specific overt act against them. Therefore, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 namely, Sumitra Devi and Kiran Devi @ Rina Devi is allowed. In the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, named above, within six weeks from today, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2018, they shall be released on anticipatory
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26842 of 2018 (3) dt.19-06-2018 3/3 bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dihri, Rohtas, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. with further conditions (1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned, (2) petitioners shall cooperate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and their absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will be liable to cancel their bail bond and (3) if petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioners.
(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T