Patna High Court
Kanti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the allegations against the petitioners were common with those against the other accused and could not be segregated.
Summary
The petitioners, three women from Kadi Bigha, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (PS‑613/2025) involving alleged assault with bricks and stones that caused grievous injuries to two victims. The FIR charged them, along with other accused, under several sections of the B.N.S., including offences of assault and causing grievous hurt. The State argued that the injuries were serious and the allegations were common to all accused, making segregation of the petitioners impossible. The petitioners contended that the omnibus nature of the charge and their lack of criminal antecedent should merit anticipatory bail. The Court held that because the allegations were identical against all accused, the petitioners could not be granted anticipatory bail, despite being women and having no prior record. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected, with the Court directing that the petitioners may surrender within four weeks and file a regular bail application for consideration.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the FIR alleges a common offence against all accused, including the petitioners.
- Whether the petitioners' gender and clean criminal record warrant a separate consideration for anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351, 351(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- common allegation
- grievous injury
- gender considerations
- bail application
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6512 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-613 Year-2025 Thana- RAHUI District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Kanti Devi W/o Sunil Paswan R/o vill - Kadi Bigha, P.S.- Rahui (Bhagan
Bigha), Distt.- Nalanda
2. Hira Devi W/o Santosh Paswan R/o vill - Kadi Bigha, P.S.- Rahui (Bhagan
Bigha), Distt.- Nalanda
3. Sailun Devi W/o Dharmendra Paswan R/o vill - Kadi Bigha, P.S.- Rahui
(Bhagan Bigha), Distt.- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Dimpal Kumari, Advocate
: Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 01-04-2026 Heard Ms. Dimpal Kumari, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP representing
the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Rahui (Bhagan Bigha) P.S. Case No. 613 of
2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 117(2), 351, 351(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of
the B.N.S., lodged on 21.10.2025 by the informant Nitish
Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that all the named accused persons including the petitioners
herein due to the dispute started throwing bricks and stones
from the rooftop causing injury to Maro Devi, Nitish Kumar and
other family members. They were shifted to Biharsharif Sadar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6512 of 2026(5) dt.01-04-2026
2/2
Hospital and then to Pawapuri Hospital. Accordingly, the F.I.R..
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
omnibus allegation against all the accused including these
petitioners who are ladies.
5. Learned APP on the other hand taken this Court to
the injury report to show that injuries of both Nitish Kumar and
Maro Devi have been found to be grievous in nature and these
petitioners cannot be segregated from the other accused persons
as allegation of assault is against all the accused persons.
6. Though the petitioners are ladies, having no
criminal antecedent, in view of the fact allegation is common
against all of them as recorded above, they cannot be segregated
from the other accused persons, in that background, this Court is
not inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
8. However, if the petitioner surrender within a period
of four weeks, file bail application, the court concerned shall
consider the matter and dispose it of preferably on the same day.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…