Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Nidhi DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioners were deemed habitual offenders with a likelihood of repeat offence.

Summary

The petitioners Nidhi Devi, Ajay Kumar and Manisha Devi applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 303(2), 112, 317(2) and 317(5) of the BNS relating to the alleged theft of a golden chain. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners orchestrated the theft, while the petitioners claimed innocence and lack of any supporting witness. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioners' alleged involvement in an organized gang and their multiple criminal antecedents, suggesting they are habitual offenders. The court examined the prima facie nature of the allegations and the risk of repeat offences if bail were granted. Concluding that the petitioners appeared to be part of a gang and could repeat the offence, the court denied anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Sections 303(2), 112, 317(2) and 317(5) of the BNS.
  • Whether the allegations constitute a prima facie case justifying denial of bail.
  • Whether the petitioners are likely to commit further offences if released on bail.

Legislation cited

  • BNS — s. 112, 303(2), 317(2), 317(5)

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • criminal law
  • habitual offender
  • Sections 303, 112, 317
  • bail denial
  • organized crime

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10735 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-340 Year-2025 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
           1.     Nidhi Devi Wife of Ajay Kumar R/o- village- Daulatabad, P.S.-
                  Mohammdabad / Mohammabad , Dist- Ghajipur, Uttar Pradesh (UP).
           2.    Ajay Kumar Son of Binod Ram @ Binod Nut R/o- village- Daulatabad, P.S.-
                 Mohammdabad / Mohammabad , Dist- Ghajipur, Uttar Pradesh (UP).
           3.    Manisha Devi Wife of Mohan Kumar @ Mohan Ram Resident of village-
                 Jauhurabad, Chhak janar (Chakjanav), PS- Bareshar, Dist-Ghajipur, Uttar
                 Pradesh (UP),

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   01-04-2026                         Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) of

                   the BNS with subsequently Sections 112, 317(2) and 317(5) of

                   the BNS being added in connection with Sasaram (M) P.S.Case

                   No. 340 of 2025.

                                3. As per the prosecution case, while the informant on

                   the fateful day, had gone to perform puja in a Temple, she found

                   her golden chain of 10 gms missing. Despite frantic effort, she

                   could not find her ornament. It is alleged that it were the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10735 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
                                                       2/2




                     petitioners who orchestrated the occurrence.

                                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

                     petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the

                     present case on the basis of suspicion, and not a single witness

                     has supported the alleged occurrence.

                                  5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

                     anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                                  6. Considering the nature of allegation levelled

                     against the three petitioners which prima facie appears that the

                     three petitioners are part of a gang and have committed the

                     offence in an organized manner. All three petitioners have

                     several criminal antecedents and, therefore, it appears that they

                     are habitual offenders. If released on anticipatory bail, there is a

                     possibility of repeating the similar offence.

                                  7. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to

                     grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It is,

                     accordingly, rejected.


                                              (Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

HR/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.