Patna High Court
Sarita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that the provisional anticipatory bail order must be conditioned on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, and it will be confirmed only if she is found to have a clean record.
Summary
The petitioner, Sarita Devi, was granted provisional anticipatory bail by the Patna High Court on 29-01-2026. However, the order inadvertently omitted a direction for the trial court to verify her criminal antecedents. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted this omission, prompting the Court to insert a new paragraph clarifying that the trial court must verify any prior cases against her. If any antecedent is found, the bail will not be confirmed, as it would be deemed concealed; if she has a clean record, the provisional bail will be confirmed immediately. The remainder of the original order was left unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether the provisional anticipatory bail order should be conditioned on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents
- Whether the omission of such a verification clause invalidates the provisional bail order
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- provisional bail
- criminal antecedent
- verification
- High Court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3685 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1417 Year-2025 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Sarita Devi W/o Rajesh Giri Resident of Village- Belahiya Giri Tola, P.S.-
Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hemant Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 04-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
by order dated 29-1-2026, the petitioner was granted the
privilege of provisional anticipatory bail, but inadvertently it
appears that while recording the order the direction given to the
learned trial court for verifying the criminal antecedent could
not be recorded.
3. In view of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, after para-6, para-
7 is added which reads as follows:-
“It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3685 of 2026(3) dt.04-02-2026
2/2
then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed her antecedent before
this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall
not be confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner
is a person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.”
4. Rest of the order shall remain intact.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…