Patna High Court
Sarita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that no fresh ground exists and therefore regular bail could not be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Sarita Devi, along with her husband Ram Pravesh Singh, was charged under sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for the alleged murder of a young man and subsequent concealment of the body. The petitioners applied for regular bail, which had been rejected earlier by the same court. On a second attempt, the court examined whether any fresh ground existed for bail, noting the gravity of the offence, the long custodial period, and the claim that the trial judge had been unavailable for three months. The court found no new material to justify bail and reiterated the seriousness of the charges. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, and the order was directed to be communicated to the Principal District & Sessions Judge for possible case transfer.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether any fresh ground exists to revisit the earlier bail denial.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- gravity of offence
- trial judge vacancy
- custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2187 of 2026
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14667 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2024 Thana- GANGTA District- Munger
======================================================
Sarita Devi W/o Ram Pravesh Singh R/o Mohalla- Jamghat, P.S- Gangta,
Dist- Munger.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Gangta
P.S. Case No.87 of 2024 registered for the offence under
sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner
was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2025 passed in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.14667 of 2025 and other analogous
cases. The aforesaid order dated 08.05.2025 reads as under:-
“Ref:- Cr. Misc. No. 14475 of 2025 & Cr.
Misc. No.14667 of 2025
Both these applications are arising out
of the same P.S. Case i.e., Gangta P.S. Case
No. 87/2024. Hence, they are being heard
together and are being decided by this common
order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2187 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
2/3
petitioners, Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur and
learned APP for the State.
3. The petitioners seek regular bail in a
case registered for the offence under Sections
103(1), 238, 61(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. As per the prosecution case, the
informant has alleged that the petitioners
along with other co-accused persons have
committed murder of her son and for
concealing the crime, they threw the body of
the deceased in a field.
5. There was suspicion raised against
the petitioners. During investigation it has
come that the daughter of the petitioners was
in a relationship with the deceased and
because of that, the deceased was called and
he was killed by strangulation. The duppatta
used in the crime was recovered on the
confession of Sarita Devi. The petitioners
namely Ram Pravesh Singh & Sarita Devi are
husband and wife i.e., they are the parents of
the girl.
6. The petitioner namely Ram Pravesh
Singh is in custody since 27.09.2024 and the
petitioner namely Sarita Devi is in custody
since 21.09.2024.
7. Considering the fact that the
petitioners are involved in the killing of the
deceased, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioners.
8. Accordingly, these applications for
regular bail stand rejected.”
4. Considering the gravity of offence, I am not
inclined to review my earlier order. Further, no fresh ground for
grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, this bail application is
dismissed.
5. At this stage, it has been submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Judge is not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2187 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
3/3
available for last three months.
6. It is not possible that any Court will be
vacant for such a long period. If that be so, the Principal District
& Sessions Judge, Munger will transfer this case to a Court
having lesser workload.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to
the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Munger forthwith
through FAX or e-mail for its compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
U T
Checking your session…