Rukmani Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84825 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-315 Year-2019 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Rukmani Devi, aged about 38 years, Gender-Female, Wife of Mahanand Yadav, Resident of Village - Gamharia, P.S.- Sour Bazar (Baijnathpur), District - Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Sour Bazar (Baijnatpur) P.S. Case No. 315 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 327, 307, 379, 427, 447, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that petitioner and informant are brothers and partition took place between the parties in the year 2006. Further case is that on 15.02.2019 at 12:00 hours Mahanand Yadav and Rukmani Devi for dispute of Rasta came and assaulted the informant by catching her hair

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84825 of 2019(2) dt.17-02-2020 2/2 and Mahanand Yadav assaulted her with intention to kill gave Farsa blow over her head and when children of the informant came to save her. Then they were also assaulted and during marpit, Mahanand Yadav took her golden chain and Rukmani Devi took golden chain of her daughter. Dearlier on 01.08.2019, Mahanand Yadav came armed with Farsa and knife with intention to kill and Rukmani Devi armed with spade came for digging the said Rasta and informant went to save her husband but she was assaulted by giving spade blow but anyhow they saved themselves.

There is specific allegation against the petitioner. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Nasimul/- U T