Patna High Court
Lilawati DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, directing her release on bail with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
Lilawati Devi was accused of kidnapping a minor, administering medicine to render her unconscious, and forcing her to work as a maid. The original FIR listed bailable offences under IPC sections 363 and 34, but later the FIR was amended to include non‑bailable offences under IPC sections 371 and 328 and sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The petitioner filed a second anticipatory bail petition after an earlier one was rejected, arguing that the victim’s statement under CrPC s.164 named only other accused and that the FIR was filed after a delay of over a month. The court noted the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the lack of any direct allegation against her in the victim’s statement. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing her release on a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted despite the addition of non‑bailable offences in the FIR
- Whether the victim’s statement, which does not name the petitioner, negates the prima facie case against her
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR is a factor in granting bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Settlement Scheme — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 164
- Delhi Police Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 328, 34, 363, 371
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- non‑bailable offence
- victim statement
- clean antecedent
- delay in FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10801 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2023 Thana- SIMRI District- Buxar
======================================================
Lilawati Devi W/o Late Ram Pravesh Sah R/o Village - Bikahuk Ka Dera, PS
- Simri, Distt.- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Dimpal Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nand Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 09-06-2026 The present second anticipatory bail petition preferred
on the sole reason that the earlier bail petition was disposed of
with a direction to surrender before the learned trial court, in
view of the fact that the offence alleged under Section 363/34 of
the IPC was bailable in nature.
2. Taking note of aforesaid observations, it is
submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it
was the wrong fact and on 17.12.2024 the offence under
Sections 371 and 328 of the IPC and also the offences under
Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act was added and, therefore, the
allegation was not purely bailable rather non-bailable in nature. It
is pointed out that earlier anticipatory bail petition of the
petitioner bearing ABP No. 416/2023 dated 11.04.2023 was
rejected by the learned trial court and by that time only the FIR
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10801 of 2026(5) dt.09-06-2026
2/3
was lodged under Section 363/34 of the IPC and, therefore,
against said rejection order, the earlier anticipatory bail petition
was preferred without taking note of addition of new offences in
the FIR dated 17.12.2024. Thereafter, again second anticipatory
bail petition was preferred before the learned trial court, which is
now impugned order mentioning all the added offence as
discussed aforesaid, which was rejected by learned trial court
through impugned order dated 10th December, 2025. It is also
pointed out by learned counsel that earlier rejection was not after
considering the merit and, therefore, still the merit of this case is
open to argue.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is to kidnap the
minor daughter of the informant and also to administered her
medicine to make her unconscious and also to forced her to work
as maid servant at Lucknow.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that after recovery of victim, her
statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. where she
named only Muniya and Usha Devi and no allegation was raised
against this petitioner. It is also pointed out that FIR in issue was
lodged with a delay of one month and 23 days, which only
suggest the afterthought implication of this petitioner, who is a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10801 of 2026(5) dt.09-06-2026
3/3
lady of clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact as prima facie victim failed to name the
petitioner, suggesting her involvement with crime in question,
coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a lady of clean
antecedent, accordingly, above named petitioner, in the event of
her arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court, within a
period of four weeks of the order, is directed to be released on
bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Sessions Judge, Buxar/concerned Court, where the
case is pending in connection with Simri P.S. Case No. 33 of
2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2)
of the BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.