Patna High Court
Punam DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the confessional statement lacked evidentiary value and the alleged offence warranted further investigation.
Summary
Petitioner Punam Devi sought anticipatory bail after learning that she might be arrested in a case under Sections 303(2) and 62 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, relating to alleged chain snatching. The petitioner argued that she is a woman with a prior case, that the alleged incident involved two unknown women, and that a confessional statement made by an apprehended accused in police custody is inadmissible. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the rise in chain‑snatching offences and the need to investigate, while noting that the petitioner's name did not appear in the confessional statement. The court considered the limited evidentiary value of the confessional statement and the seriousness of the alleged offence. Concluding that the circumstances did not merit granting anticipatory bail, the court rejected the petitioner's application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 303(2) and 62 of the BNS, 2023
- Whether a confessional statement made by an accused in police custody has evidentiary value for granting bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 303(2), 62
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- evidentiary value
- chain snatching
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17403 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-580 Year-2025 Thana- HISUWA District- Nawada
======================================================
Punam Devi W/O Santosh Kewat R/O Village- Purandarpur, P.S- Tharthari,
District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and
62 of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and is a woman and the
informant alleges that two unknown women accused snatched
chain of her daughter while they were sitting in an Auto, on
alarm one woman accused was apprehended who disclosed her
name as Sarita and disclosed the name of the accused who fled
as petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17403 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
2/2
recovered from her conscious possession. It is further submitted
that confessional statement of an accused in police custody does
not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case. It is next submitted that no
doubt name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional
statement of apprehended accused in police custody which does
not have any evidentiary value, but then allegation is of chain
snatching which of late in the State of Bihar is on the rise, it is
thus submitted that the case requires to be investigated and
interrogation of the petitioner is required.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…