Patna High Court
Kavita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Kavita Devi petitioned for bail in a murder case (Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) of the B.N.S.) where she is alleged to have killed the husband of an informant. The prosecution’s case rests on a confession that led to the recovery of an axe bearing human blood, though no eyewitness testimony exists and the blood was not conclusively identified as the victim’s. The petitioner argued that the FIR was filed on mere suspicion and that she has no prior criminal record, having been in custody since 10‑09‑2025. The State opposed bail, contending that the confession and forensic findings substantiate the charges. The Court, considering the confessional statement and the recovered weapon with blood, declined to grant bail, rejecting the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a murder case where the confession has led to the recovery of the alleged murder weapon bearing human blood.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- confession
- forensic evidence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79191 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-629 Year-2025 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka
======================================================
Kavita Devi Wife of Birendra Yadav Resident Of Village - Dodhari, P.S. -
Fullidumar, Dist. - Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) of the
B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along
with other co-accused is said to have killed the husband of the
informant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of suspicion as the
informant suspected that her husband was having illicit
relationship with the petitioner. However, neither the informant
nor any person has claimed to be eye-witness to the incident
and the only material against the petitioner is that her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79191 of 2025(4) dt.19-02-2026
2/2
confession has led to recovery of the murder weapon which is
an axe and when the blood-stained axe was sent for FSL
examination, the report stated to be human blood, but it is not
conclusive proof of the fact that the blood was that of the
deceased. Further the petitioner is in custody since 10.09.2025
with no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been
submitted.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of
bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are
supported by the materials collected during the course of
investigation.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering the fact that the
confessional statement of the petitioner has led to the recovery
of the murder weapon and human blood has been found on the
said weapon, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of
bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the
petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Amarpur
(Fulidumar) P.S. Case No.629 of 2025.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…