Patna High Court
Sugiya Devi @ Sunaina DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as the petitioner has a clean antecedent and no specific allegation of assault or overt act against her.
Summary
Sugiya Devi was arrested on 20 July 2025 in connection with a FIR alleging that she and co‑accused entered a house, assaulted the occupants, threw the father‑in‑law from the roof and stole valuables. The petitioner claimed she has a clean antecedent and that the FIR contains only a generic allegation against all accused, with no specific charge of assault against her. The prosecution opposed bail, while the petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations were fabricated. The High Court examined the lack of specific overt act attributed to the petitioner and her clean record, and consequently ordered her release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, presence in court, and non‑tampering with evidence. The bail order was directed to be implemented without delay for verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the offences alleged in the FIR.
- Whether the absence of a specific allegation of assault against the petitioner and her clean antecedent justify granting bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed by the court are appropriate for the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita — s. 103(1), 109, 115(2), 126(2), 137(2), 140(1), 190, 191(2), 238, 303(2), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- Dyne Witch Act
- false implication
- clean antecedent
- assault
- theft
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86948 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2025 Thana- TANKUPPA District- Gaya
======================================================
Sugiya Devi @ Sunaina Devi W/O Ravinder Manjhi R/O Village -Bardiha
Tola, Dukhi Bigha, P.S.-Tankuppa, District -Gaya ji
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make
necessary corrections in paragraph-1 of the bail application.
2. Heard Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
20.07.2025 in connection with Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 161 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 19.07.2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 140(1), 137(2),
303(2), 352, 351(2), 238, 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023 and under Section ¾ of the Dyne Witch Act.
4. According to prosecution case, the informant
alleged that when she and her family members were sleeping in
her house, in the meantime, petitioner along with other co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86948 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
accused persons entered her house and began assaulting her
family members and threw her father-in-law from roof and also
took him away. It is further alleged that the accused persons took
away household articles and snatched golden locket from the
neck of the informant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been
implicated in the present case and the allegation as alleged in the
F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. Although the petitioner is
named in the FIR but from bare perusal of the FIR it appears that
there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act against her
rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the
accused persons including the petitioner and police after
investigation has submitted chargesheet. The petitioner is in
custody since 20.07.2025.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
petitioner has clean antecedent and there is no specific allegation
of assault or overt act against her, let the petitioner, above named,
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86948 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
satisfaction of the learned ACJM-IV, Gaya in connection with
Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025, subject to the 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 her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his 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 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)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…