Priti Kumari @ Pritee Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86892 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2025 Thana- SINDHUGAR District- Gaya ====================================================== Priti Kumari @ Pritee Kumari D/o Brahamdeo Ravidas, Wife of Santosh Kumar Resident of Village- Khap, P.S.- Sindhugarh, District- Gaya. At present Resident of Village- Chauriya, P.S.- Barachatti, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-01-2026 Heard Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Binod Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Sindhugarh P.S. Case No.36 of 2025, dated 05.04.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),190,329(3),126(2),115(2),109,351(2) & (3),352 of B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner and 5 other went armed with iron rod at the door of the informant and they assaulted the informant and others due to which they received injuries.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86892 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026 2/3 submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR but from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioner is that she alongwith other co-accused person, namely, Arti Kumari assaulted to the uncle of the informant which suggests that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner in the FIR.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner has clean antecedent and there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner in the FIR, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Sherghati, Gaya in connection with Sindhugarh P.S. Case No.36 of 2025, subject to the conditions
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86892 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026 3/3 as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:- (I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his/her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T