Patna High Court
GUDIYA DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the conditions prescribed under Sections 438(2) CrPC and 482(2) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Summary
Gudiya Devi and Surbhi Devi applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a theft‑and‑murder case (Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) arising from an incident at Ular Suryamandir where a gold chain was stolen. The prosecution alleged that the accused used a white Scorpio vehicle to flee, but the vehicle registration could not be identified and no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioners. The petitioners argued that their names appeared only in a confession by another accused, they have clean antecedents, and there is no direct evidence linking them to the crime. The State opposed the bail, contending that the investigation was ongoing. The Court, noting the lack of material evidence, the petitioners' clean record, and the principle of liberty under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions. The bail order required a bond, sureties, and compliance with conditions such as regular court appearances and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in a case involving alleged offences under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the petitioners' clean antecedent and absence of incriminating material justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 303(2)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- murder
- theft
- Patna High Court
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13216 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2025 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna
======================================================
1. GUDIYA DEVI Wife of Anil Das R/o Vill.- Baidrabad, P.S.- Baidrabad,
Dist.- Arwal
2. Surbhi Devi Wife of Veerson R/o Vill.- Karaiya, P.S.- Paliganj, Dist.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Brij Bihari Tiwary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehended their arrest in
connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 289 of 2025, F.I.R
dated 03.11.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, Randhir Kumar,
along with his wife visited Ular Suryamandir on 02.11.2025. At
about 10:02 A.M., an unknown woman allegedly cut and stole
the gold chain worn by his wife and fled from the spot. It is
further alleged that upon checking the CCTV footage of the
temple, the informant observed the incident and identified that
the lady thief escaped by boarding a white colour Scorpio
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13216 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
vehicle at around 10:09 A.M. However, the registration number
of the said vehicle could not be clearly seen in the footage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
name of the petitioners have transpired on the confession made
by Mantu Ram and the Scorpio, as per the allegation is said to
have been used for committing the offence which also does not
belong to these petitioners and the petitioners have clean
antecedent and nothing incriminating is said to have been
recovered from the constructive possession of these petitioners.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the petitioners have clean antecedent and nothing
incriminating is said to have been recovered from the
constructive possession of these petitioners. Accordingly, this
Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13216 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
satisfaction of the learned Ms. Archana, JMFC, Danapur in
connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 289 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other 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/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the 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 their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
Checking your session…