Patna High Court
Rampari DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Summary
The petitioners, a family from Chhatauna village, applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR (Mufassil P.S. Case No.410 of 2025) was lodged by informant Priyanka Kumari alleging that Deepak Mahto entered her house, assaulted her and injured family members while trying to retrieve a dhoti. The FIR lists offences under multiple sections of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023, including outraging modesty, assault, and criminal intimidation. The petitioners argued that they have no prior convictions and that some injuries were only simple. The informant’s counsel highlighted that material facts were suppressed and that the petitioners were also accused in another case (Samastipur P.S. Case No.115 of 2015). The court, after considering the submissions and the unrefuted allegations, found that the petitioners could not be granted relief. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations and pending criminal proceedings
- Whether the absence of prior convictions and alleged suppression of material facts affect the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 329(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 76
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita
- outraging modesty
- assault
- criminal procedure
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1121 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-410 Year-2025 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
Samastipur
======================================================
1. Rampari Devi Wife of Subodh Mahto Resident of village- Chhatauna Ps-
Muffasil Dist- Samastipur
2. Subodh Mahto Son of Late Rambilash Mahto Resident of village-
Chhatauna Ps- Muffasil Dist- Samastipur
3. Niraj Mahto Son of Subodh Mahto Resident of village- Chhatauna Ps-
Muffasil Dist- Samastipur
4. Ravishankar Kumar @ Hajari Mahto son of Deepak Mahto Resident of
village- Chhatauna Ps- Muffasil Dist- Samastipur
5. Kalpna Devi @ Kalpana Devi Wife of Niraj Mahto Resident of village-
Chhatauna Ps- Muffasil Dist- Samastipur
6. Vibha Devi @ Bibha Devi Wife of Deepak Mahto Resident of village-
Chhatauna Ps- Muffasil Dist- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Brajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Praduman Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Praduman Kumar, learned counsel
representing the informant beside the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 410 of 2025 instituted
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 118(1), 109(1), 117(2),
303(2), 329(4), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay
Sanhita, 2023 lodged on 06.10.2025 by the informant, Priyanka
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1121 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
Kumari.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that Deepak Mahto entered her house and outraged her modesty.
Further, he gave injury on her cheek and when the lady opposed,
missed out his ‘Dhoti’ in the house of the informant itself. The
accused persons wanted the ‘Dhoti’ back and upon refusal and
as they wanted to lodge FIR, allegation is that all the accused
persons armed variously came and assaulted the family
members of the informant. Allegation is against almost all the
accused persons who were armed variously and injured the
informant’s side. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
though there are allegation against the accused persons, some
of the injuries have been found to be grievous, others have been
found to be simple in nature. Further, the ladies have also been
implicated in the case.
5. The informant is appearing in the present case and
he has taken this Court to paragraph-3 to show that it has been
recorded that the petitioners have never been convicted in any
criminal case previously. The submission is that the present
petitioners are accused in Samastipur (mufassil) P.S. Case No.
115 of 2015 which has not been brought on record.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1121 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
the statement of the learned counsel for the informant which
has not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
material facts have been suppressed, in that background, no
relief can be granted.
7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…