Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sushila Devi and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar

Sushila Devi and ors. vs The State of Bihar

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 11, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/975091

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sushila Devi and ors.

Respondent

The State of Bihar

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at patna criminal miscellaneous no.1462 o”1. sushila devi, wife of yogendra mahto.2. raj kumari devi, wife of hari pd. mahto.3. babloo, son of md. rahman. all are resident of village-nakkipur, p.s.-korha, district- katihar. versus the state of bihar -----------------”11. 01.2012 heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state. the petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with a case registered under sections 341, 323, 448, 307, 379, 504/34 of the indian penal code. it is submitted that the allegation is omnibus and general in nature. four persons are said to have sustained injuries in the alleged incident. the injuries are mostly simple in nature. since petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely, sushila devi and raj kumari devi happen to be lady in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/communication of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of rs. 5,000/- (five thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned chief judicial magistrate, katihar in connection with korha p.s. case no. 269 of 2011 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) cr. p.c. so far as petitioner no. 3 namely, babloo is concerned, considering the nature of allegation, i am not inclined to grant him anticipatory bail. 2 accordingly, the application so far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, is rejected. sanjeet/ (ashwani kumar singh, j.)

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1462 o”

1. Sushila Devi, wife of Yogendra Mahto.

2. Raj Kumari Devi, wife of Hari Pd. Mahto.

3. Babloo, son of Md. Rahman. All are resident of village-Nakkipur, P.S.-Korha, District- Katihar. Versus The State of Bihar -----------------”

11. 01.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with a case registered under Sections 341, 323, 448, 307, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the allegation is omnibus and general in nature. Four persons are said to have sustained injuries in the alleged incident. The injuries are mostly simple in nature. Since petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely, Sushila Devi and Raj Kumari Devi happen to be lady in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/communication of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in connection with Korha P.S. Case No. 269 of 2011 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. So far as petitioner no. 3 namely, Babloo is concerned, considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant him anticipatory bail. 2 Accordingly, the application so far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, is rejected. Sanjeet/ (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial