Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Kajal DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Kajal Devi, mother‑in‑law of a deceased murder victim, applied for bail under Section 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. She has been in custody since 7 February 2026 and argues that the entire family, including a one‑and‑a‑half‑year‑old child, is incarcerated, warranting bail on humanitarian grounds. The State and the informant opposed the bail, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Lal Muni Devi v. State of Bihar (SLP (Crl.) No. 4610 of 2026). The High Court considered the serious nature of the murder allegation and the precedent, and concluded that bail could not be granted. The application was dismissed, though the court directed the petitioner to seek proper care for the child from the jail superintendent and allowed a future application if the trial is unduly delayed.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in a murder case involving a child in custody
  • Whether the Supreme Court precedent Lal Muni Devi v. State of Bihar is applicable to deny bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • murder
  • Section 80(2)
  • child custody
  • high court
  • denial of bail
  • precedent

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21550 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-224 Year-2025 Thana- LAXMIPUR District- Jamui
                 ======================================================
                 Kajal Devi Wife of Bhikhari Tanti R/o Village - Gotajar, P.S. - Laxmipur,
                 Dist. - Jamui.


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


                                                                             ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
                 For the Informant        :        Ms. Kahkashan Alam, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   07-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                  2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 224 of 2025 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

                   Sanhita.

                                  3. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased.

                   He along with other accused persons is alleged to have killed

                   the deceased.

                                  4. The petitioner is in custody since 07.02.2026.

                                  5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21550 of 2026(3) dt.07-04-2026
                                            2/3




          entire family along with one and a half year child of the

          deceased is inside jail and considering the general and omnibus

          allegation, the petitioner may be granted bail.

                       6. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel

          for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail

          relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

          case of Lal Muni Devi vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (SLP (Crl.)

          No. 4610 of 2026).

                       7. I have considered the submissions of the parties.

                       8. Considering the allegation, I am not inclined to

          grant bail to the petitioner.

                       9. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

                       10.    However,        the    petitioner   may   move    the

          Superintendent of the Jamui Jail for proper treatment of the

          child as the contention of the petitioner is that the child is ill.

                       11. The Superintendent of the Jamui jail will take

          proper care of the child in custody.

                       12. The petitioner is given liberty to move the Court

          again if the trial is delayed by the prosecution.

                       13.    It is, however, clarified that the observations

          made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail

          application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21550 of 2026(3) dt.07-04-2026
                                                       3/3




                     any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express

                     any opinion on the merits of the case.


                                                                          (Sandeep Kumar, J)

P. Kumar

U     T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

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