Patna High Court
Mona Devi @ Meena DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court allowed anticipatory bail for petitioners 1,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 while dismissing the application of petitioner 2 as infructuous.
Summary
The petitioners (seven individuals) applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a 2024 police case alleging offences under various IPC sections, claiming false implication and a land dispute that led to a scuffle. One petitioner, Sipahi Yadav, was arrested during the pendency, rendering his bail application infructuous and it was dismissed. The State opposed the bail, but the High Court considered the facts, the petitioners' clean antecedent, and the compromise filed earlier. The Court granted anticipatory bail to the remaining petitioners subject to a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, and several conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC read with Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. The order clarified that any observations made would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners should be entertained after one petitioner was arrested
- Whether the remaining petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC given the nature of the alleged offences
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 76
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
- land dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2628 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2024 Thana- MALAHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Mona Devi @ Meena Devi, W/O Sipahi Yadav R/O Village- Pandey Tola
Ahir Toli, P.S- Malahi, Distt.- East Champaran.
2. Sipahi Yadav, S/O Late Hardev Yadav R/O Village- Pandey Tola Ahir Toli,
P.S- Malahi, Distt.- East Champaran.
3. Kishore Yadav @ Raj Kishore Yadav, S/O Sipahi Yadav R/O Village-
Pandey Tola Ahir Toli, P.S- Malahi, Distt.- East Champaran.
4. Bunel Yadav, S/O Sipahi Yadav R/O Village- Pandey Tola Ahir Toli, P.S-
Malahi, Distt.- East Champaran.
5. Ram Lall Yadav, S/O Sipahi Yadav R/O Village- Pandey Tola Ahir Toli, P.S-
Malahi, Distt.- East Champaran.
6. Antima Devi, W/O Kishore Yadav R/O Village- Pandey Tola Ahir Toli, P.S-
Malahi, Distt.- East Champaran.
7. Reeta Devi @ Rita Devi, W/O Jitendra Yadav R/O Village- Pandey Tola
Ahir Toli, P.S- Malahi, Distt.- East Champaran.
8. Geeta Devi, W/O Gallu Yadav R/O Village- Pandey Tola Ahir Toli, P.S-
Malahi, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar No.III, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2628 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/5
submits that during the pendency of the application, petitioner
no.2, namely, Sipahi Yadav, has been arrested and as such, the
present application against petitioner no.2 has become
infructuous.
2. In view of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the application stands dismissed as
withdrawn as having become infructuous against petitioner
no.2, namely, Sipahi Yadav.
3. Now, the anticipatory bail application survives only
for the petitioners nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, namely, Mona Devi
@ Meena Devi, Kishore Yadav @ Raj Kishore Yadav, Bunel
Yadav, Ram Lall Yadav, Antima Devi, Reeta Devi @ Rita Devi
and Geeta Devi respectively.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
5. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Malahi P.S. Case No.29 of 2024 registered for the offences
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 76, 303(2), 109,
351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the I.P.C.
6. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that all the eight named accused persons/petitioners
connived together and they abused and assaulted on the head of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2628 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/5
the son of the informant and also snatched away gold
ornaments.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and no such
occurrence as stated has occurred. It has further been submitted
that there was case and counter case for the said same
occurrence and even the petitioners' side had suffered injuries. It
has next been submitted that there is a land dispute between
both the parties and scuffle has taken place and subsequently,
with the intervention of a well-wisher, the parties have also
entered into a compromise and a petition dated 22.03.2025 has
been filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Motihari and all the petitioners carry clean antecedent.
8. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the
petitioners nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, namely, Mona Devi @
Meena Devi, Kishore Yadav @ Raj Kishore Yadav, Bunel
Yadav, Ram Lall Yadav, Antima Devi, Reeta Devi @ Rita Devi
and Geeta Devi respectively be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2628 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/5
within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each 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
Malahi P.S. Case No.29 of 2024, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall
be their close relative.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically
present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive
dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail
bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by
the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in
similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move for cancellation of their bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any
stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed
their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take
step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners.
However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the
above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose
of or in the name of verification.
10. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2628 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
5/5
allowed.
11. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…