Patna High Court
NIRMA DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Nirma Devi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a murder case (Sections 302 and 34 IPC) concerning the death of her son. The prosecution alleged that Akhilesh Singh murdered and hanged the son, while the petitioner was implicated later on the basis of a claim that she had an illicit affair and threatened the victim. The petitioner argued that she was falsely implicated, had no evidentiary link to the crime, and possessed a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, contending sufficient suspicion existed. The court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond, sureties, and conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS, directing the petitioner to appear at trial and cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC.
- Whether the material on record justifies denial of bail in a murder case.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- false implication
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7378 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-190 Year-2023 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
NIRMA DEVI W/o Uday Yadav Resident of Village- Karwar, Police Station-
Kargahar, District- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 20-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection
with Kargahar P.S. Case No. 190 of 2023 dated 31.05.2023
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the
informant has alleged that she had gone to her verandah and
found her son talking to one Akhilesh Singh. Thereafter, both of
them were found to be talking till late night. However, at around
3:00 A.M., when she went to wake her son, she neither found
her son nor the said Akhilesh Singh there. On the next morning
i.e. 7:00 A.M., she learned from the villagers that her son had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7378 of 2026(4) dt.20-05-2026
2/4
been killed and hanged from a tree. The informant has further
alleged that it was the said Akhilesh Singh who had murdered
her son and hanged his body from a tree.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case as an
afterthought during the course of investigation. It has further
been submitted that initially the petitioner was not named in the
F.I.R., however, during the course of investigation, the wife of
the deceased on the next day has concocted a story that the
petitioner, who was having an illicit affair with the deceased,
had threatened her that the petitioner would kill the said son of
the informant. It has further been submitted that from the
C.D.R., it would be evident that there were regular talks
between the deceased and the petitioner and only on account of
such talk, the petitioner, on suspicion, has been made an accused
in the present case. It has further been submitted that from
perusal of the Post-mortem report, it would be evident that the
cause of death has been referred to be asphyxia due to hanging.
It has, therefore, been submitted that the petitioner has falsely
been implicated in this case merely on suspicion and no
evidence whatsoever has come to connect the petitioner with the
alleged incident. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7378 of 2026(4) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
has clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the
parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of
the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released
on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on
furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor
court in connection with Kargahar P.S. Case No. 190 of 2023,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding
Section 482(2) of BNSS as well as subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial
and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7378 of 2026(4) dt.20-05-2026
4/4
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner
will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent
of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the
petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the trial court
shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the
above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in
the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.