Patna High Court
Asha deviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners Asha Devi and Rubi Kumari but denied it to Kundan Mahto.
Summary
The petitioners, Asha Devi, Rubi Kumari and Kundan Mahto, were named in FIR No. 237 of 2025 for alleged assault, theft and other offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They claim the dispute stems from a loan repayment issue and assert that the informant’s side also has criminal antecedents, including a pending complaint by petitioner No.3. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail, arguing lack of specific allegations against the two women and that any injuries were minor. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the specific allegation of assault on the informant’s son by petitioner No.3. The Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to Asha Devi and Rubi Kumari on furnishing a bail bond, but rejected anticipatory bail for Kundan Mahto, directing the trial court to decide his surrender‑cum‑bail application promptly if he surrenders within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the specific allegations against petitioner No.3 justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the presence of a case and counter‑case affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 127(2), 2(1)(d), 303(2), 324(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- case and counter case
- loan dispute
- gender
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5074 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2025 Thana- AURAI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Asha devi W/o Ramashish mahto R/o of village Prem Nagar Bhalura, P.S.-
Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur
2. Rubi Kumari D/o Ramashish Mahto R/o of village Prem Nagar Bhalura,
P.S.- Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur
3. Kundan Mahto @ Kundan Kumar S/o Ramashish Mahto R/o of village Prem
Nagar Bhalura, P.S.- Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Aurai P.S. Case No. 237 of 2025 lodged on
08.11.2025, for the offence punishable under Section 126(2),
127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 324(2), 303(2) 352, 351(2), 351(3)
& 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
six named accused persons including the present petitioners. It
has been alleged in the FIR that when the informant’s son
(Ganesh Mahto) was returning to his house then all the accused
persons came and started abusing him with regard to Rs.2 lacs
given by the informant some years ago. Then, the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5074 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/4
Chandan Mahto assaulted the informant’s son by iron dabiya on
his head and when the informant and his second son went to
rescue then, accused person Ramashish Mahto assaulted the
informant by iron dabiya on his head. Thereafter, accused
Kundan Kumar (petitioner no.3) also assaulted the informant’s
second son with iron dabiya, due to which injury has been
caused. It has also been alleged that a golden locket was also
snatched and the household articles were also scattered. Then
the villagers came and called the police and with the help of
police, the informant and his sons were rescued.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
Counsel submits that the petitioners and the informant are co-
villagers and the dispute is regarding return of loan. Counsel
submits that there is a case and counter case from both the sides.
Counsel submits that the petitioner no.3 has lodged Complaint
Case No. 45 of 2025 against the informant’s side. Counsel
submits that the allegation of assault is there, but all the injuries
are simple in nature. He further submits that the petitioners have
no criminal antecedent. Counsel submits that out of three
petitioners, two are ladies and one is a younger member of the
family aged about 21 years, having no specific allegation, rather,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5074 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/4
general and omnibus allegation is there. Counsel further submits
that the antecedent of the informant’s side is not clean. Some of
the persons from the informant’s side are accused under POCSO
Act. In this regard, he has stated the same in para 10 and 11 of
the bail application. Counsel submits that the petitioners are
ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed
upon them.
5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the injuries are
there which is apparent from the FIR as well as from the
rejection order. Counsel submits that upon petitioner no.3, there
is a specific allegation that he has assaulted the informant’s son
Dinesh Mahto on his head by iron dabiya.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioners and submits that from the record, it
transpires that there is a case and counter case from both the
sides and the specific allegation is against petitioner no.3. The
petitioner nos.1 and 2 are ladies, having no specific allegation.
7. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of
this case, let the petitioner no.1 namely, Asha devi and petitioner
no.2 namely, Rubi Kumari be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of arrest or surrender before the Trial Court within a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5074 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
4/4
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 B.N.S.S., 2023 to the satisfaction of
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (East), Muzaffarpur, in connection
with Aurai P.S. Case No. 237 of 2025, subject to the conditions
as laid down U/s 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
8. So far as petitioner no. 3 namely, Kundan Mahto @
Kundan Kumar is concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to him. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner no. 3 is hereby rejected. However, liberty is hereby
granted that if, petitioner no. 3 surrenders before the concerned
Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, then in that
case, the Trial Court is directed to pass order on his surrender-
cum-bail application on the same day, without being prejudice
that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner no. 3 has been rejected
by this Court and the Trial Court shall pass order on the merit of
this case.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.