Patna High Court
Dona Devi @ Dauna DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners with conditions, holding that the mere mention in confessional statements does not warrant denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Dona Devi and Sanita Kumari, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Raghopur P.S. Case No. 277 of 2025) concerning the alleged kidnapping and possible murder of a child. The FIR listed offences under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 109, 140(1) and 238 of the B.N.S., but the petitioners were not named therein; their names appeared only in the confessional statements of co‑accused. The petitioners argued that no specific role was assigned to them, the confessional statements lack evidentiary value, and they have a clean antecedent. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC read with Section 482(2) BNSS, including bail bonds, sureties, personal presence at trial, and verification of antecedents. The order clarified that any observations made would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to persons not named in the FIR but mentioned in confessional statements of co‑accused
- Whether the confessional statements alone suffice to justify denial of bail under Section 438 CrPC
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(1), 238
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- confessional statement
- FIR
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
- female accused
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11834 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-277 Year-2025 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
1. Dona Devi @ Dauna Devi Wife of Late Jamadar Sada Resident of village -
Koriyapatti, Ward No.- 04, Police Station - Raghopur, District - Supaul
2. Sanita Kumari @ Sanita Devi Wife of Surjeet Sada @ Hathkatta Resident of
village - Koriyapatti, Ward No.- 04, Police Station - Raghopur, District -
Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Amitesh Kumar,APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 277 of 2025 dated 15.07.2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
127(2), 115(2), 109, 140(1) and 238 of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that the named accused persons had called and taken away
the son of the informant, who did not return. The F.I.R. was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11834 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
lodged with such report that his son was missing and he had
apprehension that his son might have been killed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners were not named in the F.I.R. and during the course
of investigation, the name of the petitioners surfaced in the
confessional statement of the apprehended co-accused persons. It
has further been submitted that even though the statement has
taken into account, the only allegation is that they were in
connivance with the said accused persons. However, no specific
role has been assigned to these petitioners who are apparently
ladies. It has next been submitted that there is nothing on record
to suggest that the petitioners were involved in any manner
barring the confessional statement, which does not have
evidentiary value. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioners
have clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the
parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the petitioners above named, are directed to be released on
anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11834 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 277 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of
BNSS as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial and
shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioners
will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent
of the petitioners and in case, at any stage, it is found that the
petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the trial
court shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bonds of
the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of
the above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or
in the name of verification.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11834 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…