Patna High Court
Sushila Devi @ Soshila DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that Sushila Devi is entitled to pre‑arrest bail, whereas Maksudan Mahto is not, due to lack of specific allegations against the former and direct involvement of the latter in the alleged homicide.
Summary
The petitioners, Sushila Devi and Maksudan Mahto, were charged in Gopalpur Police Station Case No.183 of 2025 for offences under Sections 103(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, alleged to have assaulted the husband of an informant who later died en route to the hospital. The petitioners applied for pre‑arrest bail, arguing that there was no external injury, no clear motive, and that the FIR lacked specific allegations against Sushila Devi, who also had interim protection and family responsibilities. The State opposed the bail, contending that the accused had committed murder and therefore should not be released. The court examined the FIR, post‑mortem report, case diary, and witness statements, finding no evidence of pre‑meditation or specific involvement of Sushila Devi, while concluding that Maksudan Mahto was directly implicated in the assault leading to death. Consequently, the court granted pre‑arrest bail to Sushila Devi subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS 2023, but denied bail to Maksudan Mahto.
Issues considered
- Whether petitioner no.1 (Sushila Devi) is entitled to pre‑arrest bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS 2023 despite the FIR allegations.
- Whether petitioner no.2 (Maksudan Mahto) should be granted pre‑arrest bail given the alleged assault and death of the informant's husband.
- Whether the FIR and case diary provide sufficient basis to deny bail on the grounds of murder.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- murder
- Section 103
- Section 3
- Section 482
- gender
- interim protection
- Bihar
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.609 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2025 Thana- GOPALPUR District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Sushila Devi @ Soshila Devi W/O Maksudan Mahto @ Makshudhan
Mahato @ Maksud Mahto
2. Maksudan Mahto @ Maksud Mahto @ Makshudhan Mahato S/O Ramdev
Mahto
Both are resident of Village-Barkagaon, P.S- Gopalpur, Distt.- West
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bashishtha Narayan Mishra, Advocate
Mr.Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr.Binay Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Gaurav Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 02-04-2026 Heard Mr. Bashishtha Narayan Mishra along with
Mr. Brij Kishore Mishra, learned counsels appearing on behalf
of the petitioners; Mr. Binay Kumar along with Mr. Gaurav
Prakash, learned counsels for the informant and Mr. Ajit Kumar,
learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with
Gopalpur P.S.Case No.183 of 2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(2) and 3(5) of BNS.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the
petitioners, allegedly with an intention to kill, assaulted the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.609 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
2/5
husband of the informant, who succumbed to his injuries while
he was being taken to the hospital.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that no external injury is found, as would
be evident from the post-mortem report. It is further submitted
that the motive behind the alleged assault and commission of
murder is not clear from the FIR. Learned counsel further
contended that upon perusal of several paragraphs of the case
diary, it appears that a kudal (spade) belonging to the informant
was missing, on account of which the wife of the informant was
using abusive and filthy language. In the course of the said
altercation, the petitioners allegedly assaulted the husband of the
informant, who later died while he was being taken to the
hospital. It is thus submitted that, in the absence of any clear
motive and the essential ingredients of Section 100 of the BNS,
the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that interim
protection has already been granted to petitioner no.1 (Sushila
Devi) vide order dated 28.01.2026 passed in the present case. It
is also submitted that petitioner no.1 is a lady having two
daughters, and in the absence of any specific allegation against
her, she deserves to be granted pre-arrest bail to take care of her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.609 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
3/5
family.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant, as well as, the learned APP for the State vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
The learned APP submitted that the law does not warrant any
sympathy or leniency towards the accused persons and that the
petitioners, having allegedly committed the murder of the
informant’s husband, do not deserve to be released on pre-arrest
bail.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegations
made in the FIR and the case diary, it appears that there was no
prior intention or premeditated plan on the part of the petitioners
to commit the murder of the husband of the informant, who was
56 years old. I find that in the village for trial issue, the citizens
engage in fight and they lose their temper and start using
abusive language against each other or they assault each other. I
have also perused the grounds and the information contained
therein, the petitioners have not given any information nor they
have stated that they have faced the trial. I find that from the
materials collected during investigation, including statements of
independent witnesses and family members that petitioner no.2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.609 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
4/5
(Maksudan Mahto @ Maksud Mahto @ Makshudhan Mahato)
had specifically assaulted the husband of the informant, who
died while he was being taken to the Hospital, I am not inclined
to enlarge petitioner no.2 on pre-arrest bail.
8. So far as petitioner no.1 (Sushila Devi @ Soshila
Devi) is concerned, she is a woman and has family
responsibilities, including taking care of her children. She has
already been granted interim protection. Moreover, only general
and omnibus allegations have been made against her and no
specific overt act of assault has been attributed to her and the
specific allegation of assault is against petitioner no.2, petitioner
no.1 deserves to be enlarged on pre-arrest bail. In such
circumstances, the petitioner no.1 (Sushila Devi @ Soshila
Devi) is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event
of her arrest or surrender before the learned district court within
a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-
First Class, Bettiah, District West Champaran/concerned court,
in connection with Gopalpur P.S.Case No.183 of 2025, subject
to conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS of
2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.609 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
5/5
9. The learned district court is directed to verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner no.1 and if it is found that
the petitioner no.1 is involved in some other cases as what has
been stated in paragraph No.3 of the bail application, this order
will automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U T
Checking your session…