The court granted anticipatory bail based on suspicious FIR delays and lack of specific accusations against the primary petitioner.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

4 17-12-2025 Heard the parties concerned.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide order dated 15.11.2025, the application for anticipatory bail of petitioner no. 2, Pintu Lal Yadav @ Pintu Yadav, has already been dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Now, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.1 only is being considered as she is apprehending her arrest in connection with Bihariganj P.S. Case No. 38 of 2025 instituted under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2) 109, 75(2), 324(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2)3(5) of the BNS , lodged on

30.01.2025 by the informant, Mamta Devi.

4. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that on 24.01.2025, all the FIR named accused persons including the petitioners along with 10 to 12 unknow persons forming an unlawful assembly trespassed her house and looted away her belongins like buffalo, he-goat, she-goat and its kids. It is further alleged that the informant along with her family members were assaulted badly by means of Dabia and butt of the pistol. They were also threatened of dire consequences.

Accordingly, the FIR.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to land dispute between the parties and she has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits the date of occurrence is 24.01.2025 and the FIR has been lodged on 30.01.2025 after delay of six days for which no plausible reason has been assigned, hence it is an afterthought action taken only to implicate the petitioner. It has further been submitted that there is nothing specific against this petitioner and the allegation against her is general and omnibus in nature while specific allegation of overt-act is against co- accused, namely, Manjesh Kumar and Shutkun Yadav. There is a counter version to the entire incident being Bihariganj PS Case No. 60 of 2025 which is registered by the sister-in-law of petitioner no. 2. Petitioners’ side is also said to have sustained injuries

6. Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

7. Considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and the allegation of overt-act is against co-accused, namely, Manjesh Kumar and Shutkun Yadav, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner no.1.

8. Let the petitioner no.1, Meera Devi be released on bail, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the subordinate court within a period of six weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with aforesaid P.S. Case to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udakishunganj, Madhepura subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS and as also the following conditions.

(i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner(s) shall co-

operate in the investigation and make themselves available to the police as and when required;

(iv) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.

(Ajit Kumar, J)