Patna High Court
Shobha Devi @ Sima DaweversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petition was barred by the pending Section 82 proceeding and the heinous nature of the offence.
Summary
The petitioner, Shobha Devi, was named in an FIR for murder, criminal conspiracy and common intention under Sections 302, 120(2) and 34 of the IPC. She applied for anticipatory bail, claiming she lived separately and had a clean antecedent, arguing that the allegations of an illicit relationship were merely suspicion. The State opposed, contending that a Section 82 proceeding under the Criminal Procedure Code had already been initiated against her, and cited Supreme Court precedents. The petitioner’s counsel relied on another Supreme Court decision asserting that anticipatory bail is not an absolute bar. The Court, noting the pending Section 82 proceeding and the heinous nature of the alleged offence, rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when a Section 82 proceeding under the Criminal Procedure Code is already pending against the accused.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence (murder) precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 82
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(2), 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 82 CrPC
- murder
- IPC
- heinous offence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31023 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-205 Year-2024 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Shobha Devi @ Sima Dawe W/o- Vakil Mahto Village- Siswa Nuniyawa Tola
PS- Paharpur, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Barnwal
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Zainul Abedin
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending her arrest in connection with Paharpur P.S.
Case No. 205 of 2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 120(2), 34 of IPC.
3. As per FIR the husband of the grand-
daughter of informant was in illicit relationship with this
petitioner, which remains continued and when it was
objected repeatedly by the grand-daughter of the
informant, the petitioner alongwith husband of the
grand-daughter of the informant namely, Mukesh Mahto
committed murder of the married grand-daughter of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31023 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
informant.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is a lady who is
living separately. It is submitted that the allegations qua
relationship is merely suspicion and it appears that out
of said suspicion only the petitioner implicated with
present crime in question with aid of Section 34 of IPC.
Petitioner claimed clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of
anticipatory bail submitted that impugned order itself
suggests that same was rejected being not maintainable
as process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has already been
initiated against petitioner. It is submitted that said
order was passed after considering the legal report of
Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Asha
Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 5633.
6. Countering the aforesaid submission, it is
pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31023 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
there is no absolute bar granting anticipatory bail and in
interest of justice it can be passed. In support of his
submission learned counsel relied upon the legal report
of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Srikant
Upadhyay and Others Vs. State of Bihar, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 282, however, he conceded that the
nature of allegation is of heinous offence like murder.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and
by taking note of fact as proceedings under Section 82
of Cr.P.C. has already been initiated against petitioner,
where alleged offence is heinous in nature, accordingly,
the prayer of anticipatory bail of this petitioner stands
rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.