Patna High Court
Smita KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, granting it subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Smita Kumari, wife of accused Randhir Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 69, 318, 318(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in a scheme where the informant was lured into a relationship and money was taken, implicating the petitioner merely because of her marital relationship with the accused. The petitioner contended that there was no evidence of her participation in the alleged offences and that the allegations were unfounded. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges. After considering the submissions, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., directing the petitioner to furnish bail bonds and comply with attendance requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner, merely as the wife of the accused, should be denied anticipatory bail on the basis of alleged involvement.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioner satisfy the criteria to refuse bail under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the B.N.S.S.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318, 318(2), 482(2), 61, 69
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- spousal liability
- bail conditions
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33387 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2026 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
Smita Kumari, W/o Randheer Kumar, R/o Village - Moldiyar Tola, Ward No.
10, Ward no. - 10, Netajee Road near Chairman Road, P.S. - Mokama, Dist. -
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. Petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with
Mahila P.S. Case No. 8 of 2026 registered for the offences under
Sections 69, 318, 318(2), 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that she is working in Navjeevan Hospital and that she is
also a divorcee. It has been alleged that, with an intention to
remarry, she came in contact with one Randhir Kumar (husband
of the petitioner). It is alleged that Randhir Kumar introduced
himself as a divorcee and she proposed to marry him and on
such pretext, he had also established physical relation with her.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33387 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
2/4
It is further alleged that the said Randhir Kumar had taken
money from her in the name of taking debt, however, the
amount has not been returned. It is also alleged that the
petitioner, i.e., the wife of the said accused, Randhir Kumar, was
also involved along with the father and mother of the accused
Randhir Kumar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated with sweeping allegations
of her involvement in the present case. It has further been
submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the
petitioner was involved in accepting the amount paid by the
informant to the said accused Randhir Kumar and merely
because she happens to be the wife of the accused Randhir
Kumar, she has been implicated in this case. It has next been
submitted that whatever allegations of alluring the informant,
who is admittedly a divorcee, have been made against the
accused Randhir Kumar and there is no averment with regard to
any role having been played by the petitioner. It has also been
submitted that the other co-accused persons, namely Sudhir
Kumar and Nilam Devi, have already been granted bail by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.30268 of 2026
vide order dated 08.05.2026.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33387 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
3/4
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the
petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the
event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) 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
Mahila P.S. Case No. 8 of 2026, 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 petitioner shall be her
close relative.
(ii) The petitioner 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
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court
concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature
of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty
to move for cancellation of her bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33387 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
4/4
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is
found that the petitioner has concealed her criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
8. 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/ayushkr-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.