Priti Kumari @ Pritee KumariversusThe 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

2   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