IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37073 of 2008 NITU KUMARI wife of Sh. Shekhar Kumar, resident of Village and police station- Narhat, Distt-Nawada, At Present-Chairman, District Board, Nawada. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 02.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The offences are under Sections 364, 342, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in-nutshell are to the effect that in order to frustrate the no confidence motion, petitioner threatened the informant at his Patna and Nawada House to see that his brother alongwith another signatory of the motion do not press the motion for removing her from the post of Chairman of the District Board. It has been submitted that the cases are lodged against the petitioner for ulterior purpose on account of political rivalry since she was Chairmain of District Board, Nawada at the material time. It is further submitted that in paragraph-17 of the petition, statement was made that there was no criminal case pending against the petitioner. The petitioner clarified by filing a supplementary affidavit annexing the copy of the First Information Reports of two cases against her. In effect, submission is that the - 2 - petitioner is being implicated in this case or the other cases so that ultimately, she may be removed from the Chairman of the District Board. He further submits that notwithstanding the above, no confidence motion was moved and the petitioner was removed from the post of Chairman of the District Board. He further submits that petitioner is a lady and has been implicated in this case primarily for getting her removed from the post of Chairman of the District Board to which the informant succeeded by ulterior means. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner in order to frustrate, no confidence motion is alleged to have threatened the informant. It is further submitted that the petitioner had given statement in paragraph-17 of the application that he has no criminal antecedent is not correct however , petitioner later filed supplementary affidavit explaining the to pending cases against her. On the last occasion since counsel for the informant was heard and as such, today also he is permitted to make his submission. Learned counsel for the informant submits that petitioner is not entitled to privilege of anticipatory bail even though she could not succeeded in defeating the no confidence motion against her and adopted all sorts of criminal action for frustrating the no confidence motion. - 3 - It has been submitted by the parties, that no confidence motion was passed and the petitioner was removed. In the fact and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner in the event of her arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 237 of 08 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Jagdish (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)