Patna High Court
Nidhi DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court held that because the petitioners are not named in the FIR and are implicated solely on a co‑accused’s confession without any other incriminating material, they are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioners, Nidhi Devi, Ajay Kumar and Manisha Devi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a theft case (PS Case No. 342 of 2025) involving a missing gold chain. The FIR named no specific accused; the petitioners were implicated solely on the basis of a co‑accused’s confessional statement, with no material recovered from them. They have prior criminal cases, but most were registered after the present case and they are already on bail in those matters. The State opposed anticipatory bail, arguing the petitioners have antecedents and that co‑accused were granted regular bail, not anticipatory bail. The High Court, noting the lack of direct incriminating evidence and that the petitioners were not named in the FIR, granted anticipatory bail with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, ordering them to furnish bail bonds and comply with specified conditions.
Issues considered
- The petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail when they are implicated only through a co‑accused’s confessional statement and not named in the FIR.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 112, 303(2), 317(2), 317(5), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- FIR
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- theft
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11456 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-342 Year-2025 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Nidhi Devi W/o- Ajay Kumar R/v- Daulatabad Ps-Mohammabad
Mohammdabad Ghajipur, U.P.
2. Ajay Kumar S/o- Binod Ram @ Binod Nut R/v- Daulatabad Ps-
Mohammabad Mohammdabad Ghajipur, U.P.
3. Manisha Devi W/o- Mohan Kumar @ Mohan Ram R/v- Jauhurabad, Chhak
Janar Ps- Bareshar, Dist- Ghajipur, U.P
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No. 342 of 2025
registered on 31.10.2025 for the offence punishable under
sections 303(2), of the BNS and later on, sections 112, 317(2),
317(5) of the BNS was added.
3. As per the prosecution case, the wife of the
informant has been deprived of a gold chain with a Radha-
Krishna locket weighing about 12 grams while performing
Chhath Puja at Veda Surya Mandir, Sasaram by some unknown
miscreants. Accordingly, the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11456 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
FIR is against unknown and the name of these petitioners have
cropped up on the basis of confessional statement of a co-
accused, namely, Sangam Kumari @ Bijul, who along with two
other similarly situated co-accused persons, have already been
granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
26.02.2026 vide Cr. Misc. No. 9197 of 2026. It has next been
submitted that except confessional statement of a co-accused,
nothing incriminating is said to have been recovered from the
constructive possession of these petitioners. Learned counsel for
the petitioners fairly submits that the criminal antecedents which
have been referred in paragraph-3 of the instant petition, except
Kotwali PS Case No. 415 of 2022 and Mohammadbad PS Case
No. 157 of 2022, all the cases have been registered after
institution of the present case. The petitioners are on bail on all
those cases.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory
bail by submitting that the petitioners have got criminal
antecedents and the similarly situated co-accused persons have
been granted regular bail and not anticipatory bail, therefore, the
petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11456 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
the case and considering the submissions of the parties and the
fact that the petitioners are not named in the FIR, they have
been dragged in this case on the basis of confessional statement
of co-accused, who has been granted regular bail, this Court is
inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, be released on
bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with aforesaid
PS Case subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the
family member/relative of the petitioner(s)
who shall provide official document to show
his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear
on each and every date before the Trial
Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason
will entail cancellation of his/their bail bond
by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no
way try to induce or promise or threat the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11456 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist
from committing any criminal offence again,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of his/their bail
bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
U T
Checking your session…