Patna High Court
Lagni DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions, subject to bond and sureties, and retained the power to cancel bail for non‑cooperation.
Summary
Lagni Devi, a resident of Jamui, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged against her under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, alleging her involvement in a poisoning case linked to a family dispute. She contended that the allegations were false, that she has a clean record, and that the alleged second marriage to Sonu Kumar Sah never occurred. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The court examined the earlier order granting anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 51864/2025 and considered the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation. It granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000, two sureties, and a condition that bail may be cancelled if she fails to cooperate.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Lagni Devi under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act in view of the FIR under Sections 103(1) and 3(5).
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged false implication and cooperation with investigation affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103, 3, 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
- false implication
- FIR
- women's rights
- Bihar criminal law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69829 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2025 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
======================================================
Lagni Devi W/o Guddu Manjhi R/o Village- Jogajhingoi, P.S.- Khaira,
District- Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amar Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and
3(5) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and
the informant alleges that his sister was married to Sonu Kumar
Sah, about 18 years ago, but Sonu Kumar Sah used to torture
her as she was not able to conceive, though his sister had
conceived, but the child, at the time of delivery, died. It is
further alleged that Sonu Kumar Sah performed his second
marriage with Lagni Devi (petitioner). It is next alleged that the
sister of the informant on 20-2-2025 called and disclosed that
Sonu Kumar Sah and Lagni Devi forcibly administered poison,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69829 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
accordingly, the informant reached the place of occurrence and
found the dead body of his sister lying.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that sister of
the informant was married to Sonu Kumar Sah about 18 years
back. It is next submitted that since sister of the informant was
not conceiving, as such, some dispute had arisen but
subsequently she conceived and the child died, at the time of
delivery, on account of which the victim started remaining in
depression and, thus, committed suicide. It is also submitted that
the marriage was 18 years old and if Sonu Kumar Sah was
torturing the sister of the informant in the manner as alleged in
that event either the victim or the informant would have
instituted a case but then the same was not done. It is further
submitted that no doubt, in the FIR, it is alleged that Sonu
Kumar Sah performed his second marriage with the petitioner,
but then it is asserted and submitted that Sonu Kumar Sah
neither prior nor after the death of the victim has performed his
second marriage. It is next submitted that Sonu Kumar Sah had
approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69829 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
Misc. No. 51864 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by
an order dated 22.09.2025 wherein it is recorded -- It is also
submitted that no doubt in the FIR it is alleged that petitioner
(Sonu Kumar Sah) performed his second marriage with Lagni
Devi (petitioner herein), but then a supplementary affidavit has
been filed, wherein at Para-3, it has been specifically pleaded
that petitioner (Sonu Kumar Sah) neither prior nor after the
death of the victim performed his second marriage. It is further
submitted that petitioner is wife of Guddu Manjhi and has
children out of the wedlock, but in order to give serious colour
to the case, a false allegation has been alleged. It is next
submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate
in the investigation to prove her innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the order
dated 22.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 51864 of 2025, let the
petitioner, above-named, in the event of her arrest or surrender
before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from
today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69829 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court
where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with
Jamui P.S. Case No. 80 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
7. However, if the investigating officer of the case
files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its
notice that the petitioner despite giving assurance to this Court
is not cooperating in the investigation, the learned trial court
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…