Patna High Court
Saroj DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners subject to a Rs 30,000 bond and verification of criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Saroj Devi, Anisha Kumari and Kalu Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, fearing arrest in a case alleging assault and theft under multiple sections of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. They contended that the FIR was filed out of personal vendetta related to a land dispute between brothers and that they were implicated merely due to their relationship with the primary accused, Raju Yadav. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the specific assault allegation pertained to Raju Yadav, who is not a petitioner. The Court examined the allegations and the petitioners' claim of innocence and clean antecedent. It granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioners to furnish a bail bond of Rs 30,000 each to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Chambram, with a condition that the trial court verify their criminal antecedents and cancel bail if any concealment is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in view of the FIR allegations.
- Whether the petitioners' familial relationship with the primary accused justifies granting bail.
- Whether the trial court should be directed to verify the petitioners' criminal antecedents as a condition of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 2(1)(d), 482
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- BNSS 2023
- BNYS 2023
- criminal miscellaneous
- family members
- personal vendetta
- bail conditions
- verification of antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4910 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-197 Year-2025 Thana- GOVINDGANJ District- East
Champaran
======================================================
1. Saroj Devi W/o Raju Yadav R/o Village - Mangurahan, Tola Balaha, P.S -
Govindganj, District - East Champaran
2. Anisha Kumari D/o Raju Yadav R/o Village - Mangurahan, Tola Balaha, P.S
- Govindganj, District - East Champaran
3. Kalu Yadav @ Chandrajeet Kumar S/o Raju Yadav That from Impugned
Order Chanarjit Yadav is mentioned, This is error of records) R/o Village -
Mangurahan, Tola Balaha, P.S - Govindganj, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Rathore @ Kundan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and
Learned APP for the State.
2. The present criminal miscellaneous application has
been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS, 2023’) for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners who apprehend arrest
in connection with Govindganj P.S. Case No. 197 of 2025,
lodged on 26.07.2025, under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/118(1) /
109 /303(2)/352/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
four named accused persons including the present petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4910 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
Allegation against the accused persons are that they have
entered into the house of the informant assaulted and snatched
money kept in the house.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
Counsel submits that from the FIR itself it becomes crystal clear
that Pramod Yadav and Raju Yadav are full brothers. They are
sons of Mukhdeo Yadav and due to petty land dispute
occurrence took place between them. Counsel submits that
from the content of the FIR, it becomes crystal clear that
specific allegation against Raju Yadav, other persons were made
accused only due to the reason that they are wife, daughter and
son of Raju Yadav. Counsel submits that it is due to the
personal vengeance the present case has been filed. Counsel
submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean. They are ready
to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon
them.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioners and submits that specific allegation of
assault is against Raju Yadav, who is not the petitioner.
6. In the present facts and circumstances of this case,
let the above named petitioners be released on anticipatory bail,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4910 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court
below within a period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each as
mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the BNSS, 2023 to the
satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran,
Motihari, in connection with Govindganj P.S. Case No. 197 of
2025, subject to the conditions as laid down U/s 482(2) of the
BNSS, 2023.
7. And further condition that the Trial Court shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the Trial Court shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
U T
Checking your session…