Patna High Court
Chhatiya DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that a pending Section 82 proceeding does not preclude the grant of anticipatory bail and that, in the absence of specific assault allegations against the petitioners, bail should be granted.
Summary
The petitioners, four women who are family members of co‑accused in a murder case, sought anticipatory bail after fearing arrest under a FIR that alleged assault with an iron rod leading to death. The FIR specifically implicated co‑accused Gulshan Kumar and Vakil Mandal for assault, while the petitioners were only alleged to have hurled abuses, with no specific charge of assault against them. The State opposed the bail, citing a pending proceeding under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court examined the lack of specific allegations against the petitioners and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Asha Dubey v. State of M.P., which held that a Section 82 proceeding does not bar anticipatory bail. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and compliance with conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when a proceeding under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is pending.
- Whether the petitioners are specifically alleged to have committed assault under the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 — s. 103(1), 109, 117(2), 126(2), 190, 482(2), 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 82
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 82 Cr.P.C.
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- BNSS
- murder
- FIR
- family members
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3096 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2025 Thana- Kharagpur District- Munger
======================================================
1. Chhatiya Devi Wife of Bechan Mandal Resident Of Village- Dularpur Ps-
Kharagpur, Dist- Munger
2. Sabita Bharti wife of Sunil Mandal Resident Of Village- Dularpur Ps-
Kharagpur, Dist- Munger
3. Anjali Devi @ Anjali Rai Wife of Gulsan Kumar Resident Of Village-
Dularpur Ps- Kharagpur, Dist- Munger
4. Indu Kumari @ Indu Devi wife of Vakil Mandal Resident Of Village-
Dularpur Ps- Kharagpur, Dist- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar No.1, Advocate
: Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Anamika Anshu, Advocate
: Ms. Shambhavi Mansi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190,
126(2), 117(2), 74, 109, 103(1) of the B.N.S.
3. The allegation in the First Information Report is
that the accused persons assaulted the informant’s father with
iron rod and khanti resulting in serious injury eventually causing
his death.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3096 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it
would be evident from the First Information Report itself that
there is a specific allegation of assault upon the deceased on co-
accused Gulshan Kumar and Vakil Mandal and with respect to
other co-accused persons, there are specific allegations with
regard to assaulting other persons. So far as the present
petitioners are concerned, they are family members and the
allegation against them has been made in a general fashion that
they indulged in hurling abuses. It has thus been submitted that
there is no allegation whatsoever of any kind of assault
attributed to the petitioners and they have been made accused
only because they are the family members of the co-accused.
5. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail pointing out that the
proceeding under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been initiated
against the accused persons, in response to the same it has been
submitted by the petitioners that process under Section 82 of
Cr.P.C. was initiated during pendency of the anticipatory bail
application before the learned Court of the Sessions Judge,
Munger, hence it should not cause any impediment in the
consideration of the anticipatory bail.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3096 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
circumstances and considering that there is eventually no
specific allegation of assault attributed to these petitioners, who
are family members of the co-accused as also considering the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Asha Dubey vs. State of M.P., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
5633, that there is no total embargo on consideration of
anticipatory bail where process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has
been initiated, 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)
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 Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 231 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…