Patna High Court
Kavita Devi @ Kavita PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner No.1 but rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner No.2.
Summary
Petitioners Kavita Devi and her husband Ram Janm Pandey applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case (P.S. Case No. 470 of 2025) alleging offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The husband was alleged by the informant to have assaulted him with an iron rod, causing grievous injury, while the wife was said to have no serious involvement. The court examined the seriousness of the allegations and the statutory provisions governing anticipatory bail. It declined to grant anticipatory bail to the husband, finding the charges sufficiently grave, but granted bail to the wife subject to a Rs.20,000 bond and two sureties under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order directs that the wife may surrender within six weeks and be released on bail on compliance with the conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the wife (petitioner No.1) under Section 482(2) of the BNSS given the alleged offences.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the husband (petitioner No.2) despite the alleged assault causing grievous injury.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 482
- grievous injury
- assault
- bail bond
- Section 126
- Section 115
- Section 109
- Section 352
- Section 351
- Section 3
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8136 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-470 Year-2025 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Kavita Devi @ Kavita Pandey, Wife of Ram Janm Pandey @ Ramjanam
Pandey, Resident of village- Topra tola, P.S.- Pirpainti, Dist- Bhagalpur
2. Ram Janm Pandy @ Ramjanam Pandey, Son of Late Kedar Pandey,
Resident of village- Topra tola, P.S.- Pirpainti, Dist- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
For the informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Verma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 470 of 2025, dated 18.10.2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
3. Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, submits that petitioner No. 1 is a
fifty one year old lady. He further submits that petitioner No. 2,
who happens to be the husband of petitioner No. 1, was brutally
assaulted by the prosecution party on the alleged day and time
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8136 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
of occurrence, for which Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 469 of 2025
was registered, a copy of which has been filed with this petition
as Annexure-2. It is submitted that there is no serious allegation
against petitioner No. 1.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
informant submits that petitioner No. 2 and co-accused Ram
Vichar Pandey severely assaulted the informant, resulting in
grievous injury to vital parts of the informant’s body, and in this
regard, the trial court’s order may be perused.
5. Considering the seriousness of the allegations
appearing against petitioner No. 2 who along with co-accused
Ram Vichar Pandey allegedly inflicted an iron rod blow on the
head of the informant, resulting in grievous injury to a vital part
of his body, I am not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner No.2. Accordingly, his prayer stands
rejected.
6. Considering the role of petitioner no. 1 who is a
lady in the commission of the alleged occurrence, this Court is
inclined to grant her the relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly,
let the petitioner No.1 named-above, in the event of her arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six
weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8136 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned in connection with Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 470 of
2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of the BNSS.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-
U T
Checking your session…