Patna High Court
Puja Devi @ Puja KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied bail, holding that the allegations in the FIR and the commencement of trial justified the rejection of the petition.
Summary
Petitioner Puja Devi sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 115(2), 118, 103 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., alleging that she was falsely implicated in an assault that resulted in the death of the informant's wife. The FIR, filed by the petitioner’s father‑in‑law, alleged that the petitioner and her husband Krishna Kumar assaulted the informant’s younger son Alok Jaiswal and his wife, leading to the mother’s death. The petitioner argued that the FIR did not specifically allege assault against her and that the informant was not an eye‑witness. The State contended that the FIR, though not an encyclopedia, was based on information from the injured parties and that the trial had already commenced, making bail unnecessary. The Court, after considering the submissions, found that the allegations were sufficient to justify denial of bail and that the commencement of trial negated any useful purpose of release. Consequently, the petition for bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the FIR alleging her participation in assault leading to death
- Whether the lack of an eye‑witness and the general nature of the FIR preclude denial of bail
- Whether the commencement of trial bars the grant of bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103, 115(2), 118, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- assault
- murder
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- B.N.S.
- trial commencement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54655 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2024 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia
======================================================
Puja Devi @ Puja Kumari W/o Krishna Kumar Jaiswal @ Krishna Jaiswal
Resident of village- Itahri, Ward no. 11, PS- Dhamdaha, District- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal- Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bidhu Ranjan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in Dhamdaha P. S. Case
No. 201 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 115(2), 118, 103 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that informant (father in-law of the petitioner) alleges
that his elder son Krishna Kumar was asking him to partition the
property, but he had refused, as such, on 14.07.2024, Krishna
Kumar Jaiswal along with his wife i.e. petitioner came to the
house and assaulted Alok Jaiswal (younger son of the
informant) and when he raised an alarm, the wife of the
informant along with Puja, wife of Alok came to save him when
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54655 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
Krishna Kumar and petitioner assaulted them by Dabiya and
thereafter, Krishna Kumar fled to his matrimonial home along
with the petitioner and the injured were brought to the hospital,
but the doctor declared his wife dead i.e. mother in-law of the
petitioner.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant
case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of
the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that no
specific allegation of assault is alleged against the petitioner. It
is next submitted that informant is not eye witness to the
occurrence, but then, fairly submits that charges have been
framed and trial has commenced and one witness has been
examined.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application and
submits that FIR has been instituted by the father in-law of the
petitioner, who specifically alleges that this petitioner along
with her husband i.e. son of the informant committed the
occurrence of assault leading to death of his wife i.e. own
mother of Krishna Kumar Jaiswal and mother in-law of the
petitioner. It is also submitted that informant may not be an eye
witness to the occurrence, but then, it appears that he was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54655 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
informed by the injured persons about the occurrence. It is also
submitted that FIR is not an encyclopedia. It is next submitted
that since trial has commenced, as such, no useful purpose
would be served by releasing the petitioner on bail.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for regular bail stands
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…