Partly allowed

Soni Devi v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC14 Jun 2022CR. MISC./71740/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing anticipatory bail applications arising from an FIR regarding assaults, the High Court rejected bail for three petitioners due to serious injury allegations but allowed it for two others with specific bail bonds and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed to Santosh Kumar and Soni Devi subject to bond and conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC; bail rejected for other petitioners.

Soni Devi Vs the State of Bihar — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62960 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2021 Thana- KARPI District- Jehanabad

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Surendra Yadav Son of Late Bhangi Yadav Resident of Village - Bhagawatipur, P.s.- Karpi, Distt.- Arwal.

¶5

Satendra Yadav Son of Surendra Yadav Resident of Village - Bhagawatipur, P.s.- Karpi, Distt.- Arwal.

¶6

Satyadeo Kumar Son of Surendra Yadav Resident of Village - Bhagawatipur, P.s.- Karpi, Distt.- Arwal.

¶7

Santosh Kumar Son of Surendra Yadav Resident of Village - Bhagawatipur, P.s.- Karpi, Distt.- Arwal.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶12

======================================================

¶13

with

¶14

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 71740 of 2021

¶15

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2021 Thana- KARPI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Soni Devi W/O Surendra Yadav R/o village- Bhagawatipur, P.S.- Karpi, District- Arwal ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 62960 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 71740 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rabindra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH

¶16

... ... Petitioner/s

¶17

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

2 14-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to

¶21

remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶22

The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62960 of 2021(2) dt.14-06-2022 2/3

¶24

Karpi P.S. Case No. 149 of 2021, registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 379, 504, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

The main submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners of both the Cr. Misc. are that in fact the family members of the informant brutally assaulted the petitioner no. 1 Surendra Yadav for which the said petitioner lodged the karpi P.S. case no. 10 of 2021 and thereafter the present case was lodged after thought and conspiracy, both the parties are agnates in between them a land dispute is running and all the family members of the petitioners have been made accused and the prosecution’s allegation mentioned in the FIR is completely improbable as the informant did not sustain such injuries as per the number of blows allegedly inflicted by such large number of accused persons and the said fact in itself falsifies the allegation made in the FIR.

¶26

Learned APP has opposed the prayer of bail.

¶27

Heard both the sides and perused the FIR. As per the allegation the petitiones Surendra Yadav, Saytadeo Kumar and Satendra Yadav caused injuries to informant’s son by sharp cutting object swrod Garasa and pasuli and according to the FIR the said injured was referred to PMCH and in the order impugned two injuries have been mentioned as incised wound found at the person of the said injured. Considering the nature of allegation appearing

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62960 of 2021(2) dt.14-06-2022 3/3

¶29

against the petitioners namly Surendra Yadav, Satyadeo Kumar and Satendra Yadav, in the opinion of this Court it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to them. Accordingly their prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

¶30

So far as the prayer of petitioner no. 4 namely Santosh Kumar and petitioner Soni Devi of Cr. Misc. No. 71740 of 2021 is concerned, though there is specific allegation against them but the main injuries found at the person of the informant’s son as described in the order impugned are mainly attributed against the other petitioners and not against the said petitioners so considering this facts a lenient approach can be taken in respect of their prayer. Accordingly their prayer stands allowed.

¶31

Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest/surrender within four weeks from today in the Court below, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Court in connection with Karpi P.S. Case No. 149 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶32

(Shailendra Singh, J)

¶33

siddharthkr/- U T

Soni Devi v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soni Devi v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhuneshwar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Ram Kumar @ Ram Kumar Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Sonu Kumar Rai Vs the State of Bihar

Binod Kumar @ Binod Mehta Vs The State of Bihar

Pavitri Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Singh @ Chandan Singh Vs the State of Bihar