Patna High Court
Lakshmi DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail as the FIR does not contain specific allegations against her and she has a clean antecedent.
Summary
Lakshmi Devi, mother of co‑accused Mohit Paswan, was arrested on 5 October 2025 in connection with a FIR dated 3 October 2025 alleging conspiracy to murder the informant’s son by shooting, under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner contended that she has a clean antecedent and was falsely implicated merely because of her relationship to the accused, asserting that the FIR contains no specific allegation of any overt act by her. The informant and the State opposed the bail application. The Court examined the material on record, noting the absence of any direct incriminating evidence against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, presence in court, non‑tampering with evidence or witnesses, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner Lakshmi Devi is entitled to bail despite being charged under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in the absence of specific incriminating material against the petitioner.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- conspiracy
- Arms Act
- false implication
- criminal antecedent
- court conditions
- Section 27 Arms Act
- Section 103 B.N.S.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16843 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1045 Year-2025 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
Lakshmi Devi Wife of Kuldeep Paswan Resident of Vill.- Bhusunda, P.O.-
Nauranga, P.S.- Mufassil, District - Gaya, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Laliteshwar Prasad Sharma, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-03-2026 Heard Mr. Laliteshwar Prasad Sharma, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel
for the Informant and Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned APP for the
State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
05.10.2025, in connection with Mufasil P.S. Case No. 1045 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 03.10.2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that she along
with other co-accused persons in conspiracy killed the son of the
informant by shooting.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present case is a peculiar case of mishandling by the police and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16843 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
the petitioner has clean antecedent and she has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
From perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that there is no specific
allegation of any assault or overt act or firing attributed against
the petitioner and she has beeen made accused merely on the
ground that she is mother of co-accused person namely Mohit
Paswan and it appears from the F.I.R. it appears that there is
specific allegation of firing against co-accused person namely
Mohit Paswan who happens to be son of the petitioner and
except the aforesaid, no other cogent material has come during
investigation to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the
present occurrence and the petitioner is in custody since
05.10.2025.
5. The learned counsel for the Informant as well as
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16843 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with
Mufassil P.S. Case No. 1045 of 2025, subject to the following
conditions :-
(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed her
criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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.
Ibrar//- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
U T
Checking your session…