Patna High Court
Chanda DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail must be granted as the post‑mortem report disproves the alleged causal link and the process under Section 82 was mechanically issued without proper justification.
Summary
Chanda Devi and Shinodh Ray sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging they assaulted Vakeel Sharma, who later died. The FIR alleged that the petitioners used a sword and other weapons, but the post‑mortem report recorded death as asphyxia due to heart disease with no external injuries. The petitioners argued that the police had mechanically issued process under Section 82 CrPC without a warrant and that the alleged assault could not be linked causally to the death. The State could not rebut the medical evidence or justify the procedural irregularity. Relying on the post‑mortem findings and the lack of a valid warrant, the Court granted anticipatory bail to both petitioners subject to Section 438(2) conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the alleged assault is not shown to have caused the victim's death.
- Whether the post‑mortem report negates the prosecution's causation claim.
- Whether the issuance of process under Section 82 CrPC without a warrant is valid.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 82, 83
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- post‑mortem report
- causation
- Section 82 CrPC
- Section 438 CrPC
- assault
- procedural irregularity
- gender
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64203 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-305 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Chanda Devi W/o Vinod Ray @ Vinod Kumar Ray Resident of Village-
Sabalpur Chaharam, P.S.- Sonepur, District- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 64599 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-305 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Shinodh Ray S/O Late Chandrika Ray Resident of Village- Sabalpur
Chaharam, P.S.- Sonepur, Dist.- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 64203 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 64599 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
7 01-05-2026 Cr. Misc. No.64203 of 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64203 of 2025(7) dt.01-05-2026
2/7
191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 118(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2),
351(3), 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S.,2023 and Section 103(1) BNS
has been added later on and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and
the informant alleges that on 02.04.2025 at 09:00 AM, the
accused persons came and Vijay Kumar, Binod Ray and
petitioner started assaulting, on alarm Vakeel Sharma, Sangeeta
Sharma and Radha came to save him when twelve named
accused persons reached the place of occurrence and started
assaulting him, thereafter Vinod Ray started assaulting him by
spade causing injury on right hand, further also assaulted Vakeel
Sharma by lathi and he fell, thereafter petitioner assaulted
Vakeel Sharma indiscriminately by sword causing injury on
head, right hand and waist.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged
in the FIR it would manifest that informant alleges that the
accused persons including the petitioner came and assaulted him
and Vakeel Sharma and when Vakeel Sharma fell, the petitioner
assaulted him indiscriminately by sword causing injury on right
hand, head and waist. It is further submitted that injured Vakeel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64203 of 2025(7) dt.01-05-2026
3/7
Sharma was taken to hospital, where he was admitted on
02.04.2025 and thereafter was discharged on 07.04.2025 but
after discharge, it appears that his health deteriorated as such he
was again admitted in the hospital and subsequently he died
after one month of the occurrence, it is thus submitted that it
cannot be presumed that assault was the proximate cause of
death. It is also submitted that postmortem report of Vakeel
Sharma records cause of death as asphyxia resulting from heart
disease and its complications. It is further submitted that
postmortem report does not even remotely suggest that any
external injuries were found on the body of Vakeel Sharma.
5. Learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the informant are not in a position to rebut the
submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that cause of death of Vakeel Sharma as recorded in
the postmortem report is asphyxia resulting from heart disease
and its complications and the postmortem report does not record
external injury.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant next submits that process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has
been issued against the petitioner. The learned APP also after
perusing the case diary submits that from perusal of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64203 of 2025(7) dt.01-05-2026
4/7
supplementary case diary, it would manifest that the police
obtained process under section 82 Cr.P.C. on 06.08.2025 but
then it is submitted that from perusal of the case diary it does
not appear that process under section 83 Cr.P.C. has been sought
by the police. It is also submitted that process under section 82
Cr.P.C. received by the I.O. on 06.08.2025 till 13.10.2025 was
not executed. The learned APP thus submits that based on the
said submission, the court had directed the Superintendent of
Police to file supplementary counter affidavit, based on which,
instruction has been received wherein it is recorded that
appropriate action against the I.O. shall be taken if he is found
guilty of committing dereliction of duty.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that
as to what necessitated the police seeking process under section
82 Cr.P.C. when she never received any bailable warrant or non-
bailable warrant nor there is any service report on the record, it
is thus submitted that in mechanical manner process under
section 82 Cr.P.C. is being issued, without appreciating the facts
of the casein its correct perspective. It is also submitted that no
doubt the petitioner being woman is alleged to have assaulted
Vakeel Sharma indiscriminately by sword causing injury after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64203 of 2025(7) dt.01-05-2026
5/7
he fell but then the said allegation gets belied by the postmortem
report but still the police was in a hurry. It is further submitted
that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner,
the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the
investigation to prove her innocence.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
petitioner, above-named, in the event of her arrest or surrender
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
anticipatory bail on her furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Saran at
Chhapra in connection with Sonepur P. S. Case No.305 of 2025,
subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C.
Cr. Misc. No.64599 of 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),
191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 118(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2),
351(3), 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S.,2023 and Section 103(1) BNS
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64203 of 2025(7) dt.01-05-2026
6/7
has been added later on and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent. It is further
submitted that Chanda Devi had approached this Court seeking
anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.64203 of 2025 and the
same came to be allowed by an order dated 01.05.2026 after
considering the case on merits and in detail. It is also submitted
that though in the FIR Chanda Devi is alleged to have assaulted
Vakeel Sharma indiscriminately by sword leading to his death
but as far as this petitioner is concerned, no specific allegation
of assault is alleged against him. It is further submitted that
Chanda Devi was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail on
the ground that the postmortem report belied the allegation of
assault as alleged in the FIR. It is also submitted that the case of
the petitioner is on a better footing.
4. Learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the informant are not in a position to rebut the
submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that Chanda Devi has been granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail after considering the case on merits and in
detail.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64203 of 2025(7) dt.01-05-2026
7/7
petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
anticipatory bail on her furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Saran at
Chhapra in connection with Sonepur P. S. Case No.305 of 2025,
subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…