Meena Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3988 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2015 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- Munger ====================================================== MEENA DEVI Wife of Narsingh Prasad Singh @ Narsingh Mandal Resident of Village- Sangrampur, Ward No.06, Kusmar, P.S.- Sangrampur, DistrictMunger. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhramveer For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-09-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual mode.

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. The same be kept on record.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 146/15 registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The earlier anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 08.09.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 30008 of 2016. This is the second attempt made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail after a period of more than five years.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3988 of 2020(2) dt.20-09-2021 2/2 tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the other co-accused has been acquitted by the Trial Court. Further, it has been pointed out that the petitioner is a lady and she is not keeping well and suffering from different ailment. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the earlier anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected five years back by this Court, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the earlier order dated 08.09.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 30008 of 2016.

The application is rejected. If the petitioner surrenders in the Court below and prays for bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/- U T