Patna High Court

Jyoti Kumari @ Lovely Kumari @ LovelyversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 28 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SOURENDRA PANDEY

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the conditions imposed.

Summary

The petitioner, Jyoti Kumari, sought anticipatory bail in a theft case (PS No.19/2025) under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alleging false implication based on a co‑accused’s statement and the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for the seized ornaments and cash. The prosecution opposed the bail, but the court noted procedural lapses, including the failure to conduct TIP as mandated by the Bihar Police Manual and Supreme Court precedent. Relying on Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, directing police to follow proper identification procedures. The order also directed the Director General of Police, Bihar, and all district SPs to ensure compliance with identification protocols. The court emphasized that its observations would not affect the trial and that the bail bond should not be delayed for verification of antecedents.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC read with Section 482 B.N.S.S. in view of the alleged procedural deficiencies.
Whether the absence of a Test Identification Parade of the seized articles undermines the prosecution’s case.
Whether a co‑accused’s confessional statement alone suffices to implicate the petitioner.
Whether the procedural requirements of the Bihar Police Manual and Supreme Court precedents necessitate bail or other remedial directions.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 305(a), 331(4)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
test identification parade
theft
procedural lapse
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
CrPC
police manual
identification of property

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78466 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna
======================================================
Jyoti Kumari @ Lovely Kumari @ Lovely, W/o Ravi Kumar, R/o Sakin - East
Nand- Gola, P.S.- Malsalami, Patna City, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarvottam Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B.N. Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER

5 28-01-2026 In compliance of this Court’s order dated 21.01.2026,

the Investigating Officer of the present case is personally

present in Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in

connection with Patliputra P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025 registered

for the offence(s) under Section(s) 331(4) and 305(a) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78466 of 2025(5) dt.28-01-2026
2/8

4. The prosecution case is to the effect that a theft was

committed in the house of one Malti Devi and it was alleged

that certain ornaments, Rs. 10,000/- in cash and certain

electronic items were taken away by unknown miscreants.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and her

name has transpired in the confessional statement of one co-

accused, namely, Golu Kumar, who was apprehended in

connection with Patliputra P.S. Case No. 591 of 2024. It has

been submitted that the police thereafter implicated the

petitioner in nine other cases, which was lodged against

unknown persons, merely taking the statement of co-

accused/Glou Kumar into account. It has further been submitted

that from the perusal of the case diary, it would be evident that

no seizure-list has been attached to the same, however, one

seizure-list has been produced by the Investigating Officer, from

the perusal of which it would be evident that the seizure-list

contains the numbers of all the ten cases. It has also been

submitted that till date, the T.I.P. of the said materials have not

been done and it is an admitted fact that the husband of the

petitioner runs a jewellery shop in the name of Krishna

Jewelers. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78466 of 2025(5) dt.28-01-2026
3/8

recovered articles are regular ornaments which were the part of

the ornaments, which were kept by the husband of the petitioner

for sale and this is one of the reasons why the same has not been

put on T.I.P. as none of the claimants have come forward till

date. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner does not

have any concern with the running of the jewellery shop of her

husband and, in fact, she is a housewife.

6. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let

the petitioner, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in

the event of her arrest or surrender before the concerned

Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today,

on her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees

Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

satisfaction of the concerned Court/successor Court where the

case is pending in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case No. 19

of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section

438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with

corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78466 of 2025(5) dt.28-01-2026
4/8

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to the

following conditions :

(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be her
close relative and the other shall be a local resident.
(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 for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the concerned
Court.
(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that she has concealed her criminal antecedent, the
Court concerned shall take necessary steps for cancellation
of her bail bond. 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.
(v) In view of the antecedent of the petitioner, the
petitioner is directed to appear before the Superintendent
of Police, Patna within fifteen (15) days of her release
with a copy of this order and every two weeks thereafter
for the next nine months. The conduct of the petitioner
will be kept under watch in this period by the concerned
Superintendent of Police and if it is found wanting in any
respect, a report shall be made to the Court concerned by
him to initiate a proceeding for cancellation of bail of the
petitioner for reasons of misuse of bail. After reporting to
the Superintendent of Police, a certificate will be filed by
the petitioner before the Court concerned.

8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made

in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78466 of 2025(5) dt.28-01-2026
5/8

9. The application stands allowed.

10. In this matter, this Court came across the fact that

the Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) has not been conducted of

the materials recovered by the I.O. From the perusal of the

seizure-list, which was produced today by the I.O., it would

appear that the seizure-list contains the name of ten First

Information Reports including the present one. This Court find

that the seizure is said to have been made on 13.01.2025 and

when the I.O. was specifically asked as to whether any T.I.P. of

the materials seized from the shop of the co-accused/Ravi

Kumar has been put on T.I.P., he had answered in negative.

11. The Bihar Police Manual, 1978 talks about the

identification of the property under Rule 166, which reads as

hereunder:

166. Identification of property.-(a) Where
any Property recovered in a search or otherwise, and
alleged or suspected to have been stolen, is of a
commonplace nature, in regard to the identification
of which reasonable doubt could arise, a test
identification shall be held.Every precaution shall be
taken to prevent the witness or witnesses seeing it
before the test identification is held.

12. Rule 236(b) of the said Manual contains

instructions, which needs to be followed word by word:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78466 of 2025(5) dt.28-01-2026
6/8

1. For identification of one article three
or four articles of nature shall be mixed up.
2. No mark shall be put on a suspected
article. If it is essential to give a mark similar marks
shall be placed on unsuspected articles.
3. Care shall be taken to see that
witnesses have not seen the suspected articles
before the identification. Hence the witnesses shall
not go with that officer who carries the articles
before magistrate.
4. Where any special mark has been
given on articles from before and their descriptions
have been noted in first information report and in
the statement of witnesses, the investigator shall
fully scrutinise it after the article has been
recovered and if from descriptions given, those
articles are established, it shall not be necessary to
get identification done. Only at the time of trial, the
witnesses concerned shall identify these articles
before courts.
5. .………...

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

Thammaraya Vs. State of Karnataka, 2025 INSC 108, in

paragraph 22 has held as hereunder:

“22. Furthermore, another very crucial
missing link in the prosecution case that it failed to
conduct the Test Identification Parade(TIP) of the
recovered articles, thereby, bringing the
identification of the material objects in Court for
the first time, is under a cloud of doubt. It is a case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78466 of 2025(5) dt.28-01-2026
7/8

of sheer negligence and dereliction of duty on the
part of the Investigating Agency and the Public
Prosecutor for not conducting Test Identification
Parade (TIP). This Court shed light on the purpose
of Test Identification Parade (TIP) in Ramkishan
Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay (1954),
wherein it held as follows:
“20. … These parades are held by the
police in the course of their investigation for the
purpose of enabling witnesses to identify the
properties which are the subject-matter of the
offence or to identify the persons who are
concerned in the offence. …the identifying
witnesses are explained the purpose of holding
these parades and are asked to identify the
properties which are the subject-matter of the
offence or the persons who are concerned in the
offence.”

14. From the aforesaid decision, it is clear that on the

part of the omission of the I.O. of not conducting T.I.P. of the

recovered articles, more particularly when the case of the

prosecution is based solely upon recovery of those articles,

would lead to creating holes in the prosecution story.

15. This Court has already seen in the present case

that on account of non-identification, this Court had no option

but to release the petitioner on bail as it could not be possible as

of now to decipher whether the seized materials were actually
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78466 of 2025(5) dt.28-01-2026
8/8

those which had been taken away in the theft cases.

16. In view of the above, the Director General of

Police, Bihar, Patna is directed to communicate a copy of this

order along with the directions to follow the procedures defined

under the Bihar Police Manual for conducting identification part

of the property/suspected articles at the earliest, so that the

accused cannot taken advantage of the same.

17. The Superintendent of Police of all the Districts of

Bihar shall ensure that the I.O. of the respective cases follow the

procedures for identification of the property/suspected articles at

the earliest in such cases of recovery of theft articles.

18. The personal appearance of the Investigating

Officer of the present case is dispensed with.

(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.