Patna High Court
Priyanka KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
Petitioners Priyanka Kumari and Sujay Kumar sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023. They contended that they have clean antecedents and were falsely implicated by an informant amid a rivalry between two guest‑house owners. The FIR was lodged four days after the alleged incident, which they argued indicated afterthought and lack of credibility. The State opposed the bail, but the Court considered the delay, the nature of the alleged injuries, and the petitioners’ cooperation. The Court ordered that, if arrested or surrendered within six weeks, the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the circumstances of the case
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the alleged rivalry affect the credibility of the prosecution
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- FIR delay
- criminal procedure
- Section 482
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15684 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2025 Thana- INDUSTRIAL District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Priyanka Kumari W/o Sanjeev Kumar R/o Ashish Palace, ward no 10, Zero
Maile Chowk, Basant vihar, Thana - Industrial, District -Bhagalpur
2. Sujay Kumar S/o Sukindra Ray R/o Ashish Palace, ward no 10, Zero Maile
Chowk, Basant vihar, Thana - Industrial, District -Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 117(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no.
1 is a woman and the informant alleges that owner of Parashar
Guest House is Mithilesh and he works as a guard and Ashish
Palace is owned by Sanjeev and is run by his wife Priyanka and
is behind Parashar Guest House, further owner of Ashish Guest
House are always trying to break their customer with help of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15684 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/3
Sujay and others and they also keep threatening him, further on
29.08.2025 at 08:30 PM, the accused persons including the
petitioners along with four unknown accused in an intoxicated
condition came and started abusing, on objection Ashish
assaulted him by an iron object causing two injuries on his head
on orders of petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 2 also assaulted
by leg, further Mithilesh came and tried to reason out with
Priyanka, but she threatened him of implicating in a rape case,
thereafter he was taken to hospital where he was treated and
discharged on 03.09.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant, it is next submitted that the date of occurrence is
29.08.2025 and the FIR came to be instituted on 03.09.2025 i.e.
after a delay of four days without any plausible explanation. It is
also submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in
the FIR, it would manifest that there is a rivalry in between the
owner of the guest houses for customers. It is also submitted
that petitioner no. 1 has been implicated with an allegation that
on her orders, Ashish assaulted and petitioner no. 2 assaulted by
leg, but then the injury suffered by the injured is simple in
nature. It is also submitted that it absolutely does not stand to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15684 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
3/3
reason that as to why the FIR has been instituted after a delay of
four days after the informant was discharged from the hospital
which amply demonstrates that by way of afterthought the
instant FIR came to be instituted.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on 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
trial court where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Industrial P.S. Case No. 129 of 2025 subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…