Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Munni DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied.

Summary

The Patna High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Munni Devi, who was implicated in a case registered under sections 109, 303(2), 351(2) and (3) of the B.N.S. for allegedly attacking Sushila Devi with an axe, causing a head injury, and subsequently assaulting her daughter and stealing a gold chain. The petitioner claimed innocence, alleging that the informant was an agnate and that the dispute arose from a land conflict, and asserted she had no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged assault with a deadly weapon that could have resulted in death. The Court examined the direct allegation of a violent attack on a vital part of the body and found the charge grave. Consequently, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting the petition. The order reflects the principle that serious offences involving potential homicide do not merit bail at the anticipatory stage.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner given the alleged assault with an axe causing serious injury
  • Whether the nature of the allegations under sections 109, 303(2), 351(2) and (3) of the B.N.S. preclude anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

  • B.N.S. — s. 109, 303(2), 351(2), 351(3)

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • assault with deadly weapon
  • sections 109 303 351
  • B.N.S.
  • land dispute
  • theft
  • criminal antecedent

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1417 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2025 Thana- BHANGHA District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Munni Devi W/o Late Nagendra Bhandari Resident of Village- Rampur, P.S.-
                 Bhangaha, Dist.- West Champaran

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Abhinav Anand, Adv
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   28-01-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection

                   with Bhangha P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025, registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 109, 303(2), 351(2), (3) of

                   the B.N.S.

                                3. The case of the prosecution as per the informant,

                   namely, Sushila Devi is that on 11.07.2025 at around 04:00

                   P.M., when she was going at her home and Most. Munni Devi

                   attacked her from behind with axe and due to which, her head

                   got cut and blood started coming out. She fell on the ground and

                   get unconscious. When her daughter came to save her then

                   Dipu Kumari, Gopi Subba, Ramanand Choudhary with pre

                   intention started assaulting her daughter Suman Kumari.
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1417 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                                          2/2




                        Thereafter, Munni Kumari and Dipu Kumari snatched gold

                        chain and threatened to kill her daughter.

                                     4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                        petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

                        present case. The petitioner and the informant are agnates and

                        there is a land dispute between the parties. The allegation

                        levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus. He

                        further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

                                     5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer of

                        anticipatory bail.

                                     6. Considering the fact that there is direct allegation

                        against the petitioner of having attacked with ‘axe’ on the head

                        of the informant, which is a vital part of the body, caused injury

                        on her head which could have resulted in the death of

                        informant-Sushila Devi, this Court is not inclined to grant

                        privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                     7.    Accordingly,         the   present   anticipatory   bail

                        application stands rejected.



                                                 (Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kiran/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.