Patna High Court
Munni DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail and allowed the appeal, directing bail for the appellants.
Summary
Munni Devi and Kismati Devi, both women with clean antecedents, were charged under several IPC sections and the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in a case arising from Ramgarhwa. They applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Special Judge. On appeal, they argued that the notice was validly served, they were falsely implicated through their relation to a male accused, and the informant’s failure to appear undermined the prosecution. The High Court examined these submissions, found merit in the claim of false implication and procedural validity of the notice, and set aside the lower court’s order. The appeal was allowed, and the court directed that the appellants be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting anticipatory bail for the appellants is legally sustainable.
- Whether the notice served to the informant was valid and sufficient for proceeding.
- Whether the appellants can be held liable under the IPC and SC/ST Act given alleged false implication.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 325, 34, 341, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(f), 3(g), 3(i), 3(r), 3(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- women accused
- bail order
- IPC offences
- notice service
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4086 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2024 Thana- RAMGARHWA District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Munni Devi, W/o Dinesh Mahto R/o village- Siswaniya, P.S.- Ramgarhwa,
District- East Champaran
2. Kismati Devi W/o Vishundeo Mahto R/o village- Siswaniya, P.S.-
Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanful Devi W/o Parash Das R/o village- Siswaniya, P.S.- Ramgarhwa,
District- East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Dhannjay Kumar No 2
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 16-04-2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The appellants have challenged the order dated
03.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Ramgrahwa P. S.
Case No.97 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections
341,323,325,308,504,506,34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(i)(f)(g)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby their
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4086 of 2024(6) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
appellants submits that appellants are persons with clean
antecedent and are women. It is next submitted that from
perusal of the office report dated 24.02.2026, it would manifest
that the same records:-respondent no.2 refused to put signature
after receiving notice.
4. In view of the notings made in the office report, the
notice is deemed to be validly served.
5. It is next submitted that informant alleges that
named accused persons including the appellants came and
Bachchu along with Munni Devi assaulted her with Hasua
causing injury on neck.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no
specific allegation of assault is alleged against the appellant
no.2, Kismati Devi, but then, against appellant no.1, it is alleged
that she along with Bachchu assaulted her with Hasua causing
injury on neck. It is next submitted that since appellants are
related to Bachchu Mahto, hence they also came to be
implicated. It is further submitted that no doubt, informant had
suffered injury, but then, injury has been opined to be simple in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4086 of 2024(6) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
nature and women members of the family have been implicated
only to coerce the male members into submission. It is further
submitted that Bachchu is not an appellant in the instant appeal.
It is next submitted that this perhaps explains why informant
despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and contest.
7. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, the
order dated 03.07.2024 is set-aside.
8. The appeal stands allowed.
9. The appellants, above-named, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of eight weeks, are directed to be released on bail on
their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, East
Champaran, Motihari in connection with Ramgrahwa P. S. Case
No.97 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…