Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1456 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2011 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.

Sunita Devi Wife of Joginder Mahto Resident of Village- Bhirha, PSMedhni Chowk, District- Lakhisarai 2.

Utsav Kumar Son of Joginder Mahto Resident of Village- Bhirha, PSMedhni Chowk, District- Lakhisarai 3.

Birendra Mandal @ Biru Mandal @ Birendra Rai Son of Ajablal Rai Resident of Village- Bhirha, PS- Medhni Chowk, District- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Udho Mahto Son of Late Daigan Mahto Resident of Village- Bhirha, PSMedhni Chowk, District- Lakhisarai ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Niranjan Parihar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-02-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 505 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with respect to petitioner no.1, namely, Sunita Devi, who was arrested during pendency of the anticipatory bail application.

4. Permission is accorded.

5. It is next submitted that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are government servants and have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1456 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2025 2/2 submitted that the mother of the petitioner had earlier instituted Medni Chowk P.S. Case No.8/2011 under sections 366(A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Medni Chowk P.S. Case No.31/2011 under sections 25(A)(B) and 27 of the Arms Act. It is further submitted that on account of existing dispute, the present false case has been instituted with an allegation that petitioners were demanding extortion of Rs.5 lac.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Complaint Case No.357©/2011, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T