Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Chintu Devi @ Chinta Devi vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 295 Patna

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 295 Patna
Judgement Date : 22 January, 2021

Patna High Court
Chintu Devi @ Chinta Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 22 January, 2021
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28058 of 2020
          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2020 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
     ======================================================

1. Chintu Devi @ Chinta Devi, aged about 32 years, Female, wife of Ram Babu Sah.

2. Ram Sagar Sah, aged about 65 years, Male, son of Late Tetar Sah.

3. Pawan Devi, aged about 55 years, Female, wife of Raghunath Sah, All are resident of village- Haripur, Ward No.13, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-01-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, learned counsel

for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the

'APP') for the State and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned counsel

for the informant.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Rosera PS Case No.105 of 2020 dated 30.03.2020, instituted

under Sections 120-B, 147, 302, 307 and 504 of the Indian

Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28058 of 2020 dt.22-01-2021

had caught hold of the brother of the informant upon whom co-

accused, Ram Babu Sah, had inflicted knife blow resulting in

his death and further allegation is that the same co-accused,

Ram Babu Sah, had also inflicted knife blow on the informant

and three other ladies, who were injured.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the entire family members, including ladies, have been made

accused in a general and casual manner for wreaking vengeance

against the family. It was submitted that it is unbelievable that

seven persons would catch hold of one person and allow for one

of the accused to be in a position to inflict knife blow. It was

submitted that besides the aforesaid, even the postmortem report

discloses that there were only two knife blows on the deceased

which clearly shows that in a random manner, the blows were

inflicted and had the petitioners and others caught hold of the

deceased, then there would have been real risk of some injury

on the side of the accused also, as in the FIR itself it has been

stated that co-accused, Ram Babu Sah, was indiscriminately

attacking the informant and other family members with knife. It

was submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners were

also amongst those who had caught hold of the brother of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28058 of 2020 dt.22-01-2021

informant to enable co-accused, Ram Babu Sah, to inflict knife

injuries on him.

7. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that

the postmortem report reveals two injuries on the deceased and

further, that the informant and three other lady members have

also received knife blows and the petitioners are party to the

same as they had actively facilitated the other co-accused in

committing such crime.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in

the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within

six weeks from today, the petitioners be released on bail upon

furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each

with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

the ACJM-1, Rosera, Samastipur, in Rosera PS Case No.105 of

2020, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and further (i) that one

of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners, (ii) that

the petitioners and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to

good behaviour of the petitioners. Any violation of the terms

and conditions of the bonds shall lead to cancellation of their

bail bonds.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28058 of 2020 dt.22-01-2021

9. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

J. Alam/-

AFR/NAFR U T

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter