Patna High Court
Kanti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted as the petitioners were not named in the FIR and there was no specific evidence linking them to the alleged assault.
Summary
Petitioners Kanti Devi, a woman, and Wakil Rai, an 80‑year‑old man, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for alleged assault on an informant and his family. They contended that they were not named in the FIR, which was lodged two days after the incident, and that their names emerged only later during investigation. The FIR alleged grievous injury to a victim, Pramod Yadav, but the petitioners denied involvement, noting that co‑accused Vijay Yadav had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench. The State opposed the bail on the basis of the FIR allegations. Considering the petitioners’ non‑mention in the FIR, the prior bail to a co‑accused, and the lack of specific evidence against them, the Court ordered anticipatory bail, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS, to be executed within four weeks of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused are not named in the FIR.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
- Applicability of Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNSS to the present petition.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2), 76
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- non‑named accused
- assault
- BNSS
- criminal procedure
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25881 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
Champaran
======================================================
1. Kanti Devi W/o Vijay Yadav R/o Village - Laxmipur, P.S - Mufassil, District
- East Champaran Motihari
2. Wakil Rai S/o Gugul Rai R/o Village - Laxmipur, P.S - Mufassil, District -
East Champaran Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhandev Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 109(1), 76, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The allegation in the First Information Report is
that the petitioners along with other co-accused persons have
assaulted the informant and his family members.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners, who are a lady and a 80 year old man, have not been
named in the First Information Report and their name has
transpired during the course of investigation merely on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25881 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/3
suspicion. It has been submitted that the FIR was lodged after a
delay of two days and yet these petitioners were not named in
the same. The allegations made in the FIR are general and
omnibus in nature and the specific allegations have also been
made upon other accused persons. The injuries suffered by one
of the injured Pramod yadav is said to be grievous in nature,
however, the petitioners are not the author of the said injury. It
has further been submitted that co-accused, namely, Vijay Yadav
has already been granted the privilege of bail by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.12.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 82377 of 2025.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail on the basis of allegations made in the First
Information Report.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and considering the fact that the petitioners are
not named in the First Information Report and one of the co-
accused has been granted the privilege of bail by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, let the above named petitioners, be released
on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today,
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25881 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
3/3
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor
Court in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 434 of 2025,
subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of
the Cr.P.C/ Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…