Sova Devi @ Shobha Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68111 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2018 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== SOVA DEVI @ SHOBHA DEVI W/o Surendra Sahni Resident of VillageDih Buchauli, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manish Chandra Gandhi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Gulnar Begum ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 10-01-2020 This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Jandaha P.S. Case No. 310 of 2018, disclosing offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 326, 384 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act and Sections 13, 16, 19 and 20 of the U.A.P. Act.

Prosecution case is that some miscreants including petitioner came to the house of informant and called the informant and when his brother came out, they dragged him and fired at him causing his death Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that she is a lady and has falsely been made accused in this case. Further submission is that she is not named in the F.I.R. but later on she has been made accused on the basis of confession of co-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68111 of 2019(3) dt.10-01-2020 2/2 accused and except that there is nothing against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the ground that that the naxalites have attacked the house of the informant, in which, they dragged the brother of informant out of the house and shot him dead and witnesses in para 35 and 98 of the case diary has disclosed the name of petitioner also and confessional statement of one co-accused shows that she was actively involved in occurrence and apart from that she is accused in one more case.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner rather petitioner has to surrender before the court below and make prayer for regular bail and if any such application is filed, the court below will dispose of the same on the merit of the case, without being prejudiced by this order.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunilkumar/- U T