Punni Devi @ Punam DeviversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3039 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2025 Thana- Amhara District- Lakhisarai
                 ======================================================
           1.     Punni Devi @ Punam Devi W/o Pappu Mandal @ Pappu Kumar R/o
                  Village- Bhenaura, Janakpur, Ward No.- 14, P.O- Dihra, P.S- Amahra, Distt.-
                  Lakhisarai.
           2.    Ajay Mahto @ Ajay Mandal S/O Prabhu Mandal R/O Village- Bhenaura,
                 Janakpur, Ward No.- 14, P.O- Dihra, P.S- Amahra, Distt.- Lakhisarai.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :         Mrs.Sushmita Mishra, Advocate.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :         Mr.Shantanu Kumar, APP.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   12-05-2026                       Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioners and learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection

                   with Amahra P.S. Case No. 104 of 2025 registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 103 and 3(5) of the BNS.

                                3. Allegation is of committing murder of the sister of

                   the informant.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent. Petitioner

                   no. 1 was the one who had taken the deceased to the hospital

                   after her health condition deteriorated, as the deceased was

                   suffering from various health ailments. Learned counsel further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3039 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026
                                            2/4




          submitted that petitioner no. 1 has been implicated merely

          because she was residing with the deceased being her gotni. It is

          further submitted that the deceased herself had consumed

          poison, and it has come in the case diary that, as per the viscera

          report, the death was caused due to consumption of sulphas,

          commercially known as “grain preservative sulphas,” which is a

          highly poisonous substance. In such circumstances, the

          possibility of suicide cannot be ruled out. On the aforesaid

          grounds, learned counsel submits that the petitioners deserve to

          be enlarged on pre-arrest bail.

                       5. Per contra, learned A.P.P. for the State has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the

          petitioners and submitted that the materials collected in course

          of investigation by the Investigating Officer shows that the

          deceased was subjected to ill-treatment by petitioner no. 1.

          Although the deceased was suffering from several ailments, the

          complicity of petitioner no.1 in administering sulphas poison to

          the deceased cannot be ruled out.

                       6. Heard the parties.

                       7. The Apex Court in Manno Lal Jaiswal Vs the

          State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (Criminal Appeal No. 97 of

          2022) has observed that while granting bail, the relevant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3039 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026
                                            3/4




          considerations are (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii)

          character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar

          to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from

          justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the

          prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v)

          likelihood of his tampering.

                       8. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf

          of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in

          the F.I.R. against petitioner no.2 who is the father-in-law of the

          deceased, the allegation levelled against him is general and

          omnibus and only minuscule evidence has been collected

          against him in course of investigation, I am of the opinion that

          in course of trial, there is every likelihood that petitioner no.2

          can be acquitted.

                       9. The petitioner no.2 Ajay Mahto, who is father-in-

          law of the deceased, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail,

          in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below

          within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail

          bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like

          amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM-III, Lakhisarai

          in connection with Amahra P.S. Case No. 104 of 2025, subject

          to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C /
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3039 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026
                                                       4/4




                     482(2) BNSS.

                                  10. So far as petitioner no.1 Punni Devi @ Punam

                     Devi is concerned, there is direct allegation against her and the

                     materials collected in course of investigation also supports the

                     prosecution story, I am not inclined to enlarge her on pre-arrest

                     bail.

                                  11. The District Court is directed to verify the

                     criminal antecedent of the petitioner no.2 and if it is found that

                     the petitioner no.2 is involved in some other cases as what has

                     been stated in Para-3 of the bail petition, this order will

                     automatically lose its force.

                                  12. The bail application stands disposed of.



                                                             (Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-

U      T