Patna High Court
Lalpari DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the application is not maintainable due to the issuance of process under Sections 84 and 85 of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Lalpari Devi, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case (S. Kamal P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025) involving offences under various sections of the BNS and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, participated in an armed assault on the informant's husband, resulting in a gunshot wound. The petitioner contended she was falsely implicated, with no specific overt act alleged against her, and thus no prima facie case existed. The informant’s counsel pointed out that a process under Sections 84 and 85 of the BNSS had already been issued against the petitioner, rendering the anticipatory bail application non‑maintainable. The court, noting the existence of that process, rejected the anticipatory bail plea and directed the petitioner to surrender within four weeks to seek regular bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when a process under Sections 84 and 85 of the BNSS has already been issued against the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner can obtain anticipatory bail despite being named in the FIR without a specific allegation of an overt act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- process under sections 84 and 85
- BNS
- Arms Act
- unlawful assembly
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20880 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2025 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Lalpari Devi W/O Alha Yadav Resident of Vill.- Chamman Tol, P.S- S. Kamal
District - Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sarvottam Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State, and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has
been filed by the petitioner apprehending her arrest in
connection with S. Kamal P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025, instituted
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352,
351(1) & (2), 109 and 3(5) of the BNS, and Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that while
the informant’s husband, along with his uncle, was entering his
house, nine named accused persons, including the petitioner,
allegedly armed with country-made weapons, started abusing
them. Upon objection, it is alleged that Allah Yadav and Ankit
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20880 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
Yadav fired at the informant’s husband, and the bullet passed
through his ear.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is further submitted that, from the perusal of the
F.I.R., although the petitioner has been named, there is no
allegation of any overt act against her, and she has merely been
implicated as a member of the alleged unlawful assembly.
Hence, no prima facie case is made out against her.
5. Countering the same, learned counsel for the
informant submits that, from the perusal of paragraph 105 of the
case diary, it transpires that process under Sections 84 and 85 of
the BNSS has already been issued against the petitioner.
Therefore, the present application for anticipatory bail is not
maintainable.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, particularly the issuance of process under Sections
84 and 85 of the BNSS, this Court is not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for
anticipatory bail is rejected as not maintainable.
7. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender
before the learned trial court within a period of four weeks from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20880 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
today and seek regular bail. In the event of such surrender, the
learned trial court shall consider her prayer for regular bail on
its own merits, without being prejudiced by the observations
made herein, and keeping in view the nature of the allegations.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-
U T
Checking your session…