Patna High Court
Chhathiya DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail.
Summary
Chhathiya Devi, a resident of East Champaran, applied for anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR for offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging she and co‑accused assaulted the informant's son, causing his death. The petitioner claimed innocence and alleged false implication, while the State argued that the FIR specifically accused her of the assault and murder. The court examined the seriousness of the charges, the direct nature of the accusation, and the gravity of the alleged offence. Considering these factors, the court found no sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the FIR alleging murder and assault.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC 302
- IPC 34
- murder
- assault
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12663 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2024 Thana- PIPRA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Chhathiya Devi W/O Dinesh Manjhi Resident of Village- Bharauliya, P.S-
Muffasil, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 Heard Mr. Karandeep Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Umeshanand
Pandit, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this
petitioner, along with co-accused Akhilesh Manjhi, assaulted
son of informant with lathi and danda as a result of which, son
of informant died.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in
this case with ulterior motive. Petitioner is a lady and claims
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12663 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/2
clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
and there is specific accusation that she, along with co-accused
Akhilesh Manjhi, assaulted son of informant with lathi and
danda as a result of which, he died on the spot.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…