Patna High Court
Shashi Prabha KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail should not be cancelled as the accused have given a fresh undertaking not to contact the petitioners and there is no conclusive evidence of further threats.
Summary
The petitioners, a mother and daughter, alleged that the father and son (opposite parties) assaulted them and threatened them after refusing a settlement, and that the Rs 25,000 undertaking promised under the anticipatory bail order had not been paid. An anticipatory bail was earlier granted to the father and son subject to an undertaking to pay the amount and to refrain from contacting the petitioners. The petitioners filed a cancellation petition claiming continued threats and non‑payment. The opposite parties contended that the payment had been made, no threats were made, and they reaffirmed an undertaking not to contact the petitioners, offering that any breach could be traced via call‑detail records. The court examined the allegations, noted the renewed undertaking, and held that there was insufficient basis to cancel the bail, cautioning the opposite parties against any contact. Consequently, the cancellation petition was dismissed and the anticipatory bail remained in force.
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the accused can be cancelled on the ground of alleged non‑payment of the stipulated undertaking amount.
- Whether alleged threats and continued harassment by the accused justify revocation of the anticipatory bail.
- Whether the renewed undertaking by the accused to refrain from contacting the petitioners suffices to prevent further violation of the bail conditions.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 506, 509
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cancellation of bail
- assault
- threats
- family dispute
- IPC sections
- undertaking
- non‑payment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85524 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2024 Thana- DURGAWATI District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Shashi Prabha Kumari D/o Shiv Kumar Ram R/o Village - Kalwariya, P.O.
and P.S. - Durgawati, Kaimur, Bhabhua, Bihar, 821105.
2. Reshma Devi @ Reshmi W/o Shiv Kumar Ram R/o Village - Kalwariya,
P.O. and P.S. - Durgawati, Kaimur, Bhabhua, Bihar, 821105.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sheo Kumar Ram Son of Late Jokhan Ram R/o Village - Kalwariya, P.S. -
Durgawati, Dist. - Kaimur at Bhabhua.
3. Shashi Bhushan Ram S/o Sheo Kumar Ram R/o Village kalwariya P.S.
Durgawati Dist Kaimur at Bhabhua
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madan Mohan, Adv.
Mrs. Pallavi Pandey, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 18-02-2026 Heard Mrs. Pallavi Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan for the opposite party
besides Mr. Bharat Bhushan for the State.
2. The present application has been preferred seeking
cancellation of Anticipatory Bail granted to the Opposite Parties
No. 2 and 3 in connection with Durgawati P.S Case No. 56 of 2024
registered u/s 341, 323, 307, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of the
IPC whereby this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 24.07.2024
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 45939 of 2024 had granted
the privilege of anticipatory bail to the Opposite Parties No. 2 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85524 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
2/4
3 subject to an undertaking given by the Ld. Counsel for the
accused persons that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the
informant and her mother through bank draft, which the
Petitioners have not received till date.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant who is
daughter of petitioner no.1 and sister of petitioner no.2 has alleged
that both came and asked her mother to compromise the case
which is pending against them and when she refused, was
assaulted. As she came forward to protect her mother, she was also
thrashed by both father and son. The lady was shifted to Primary
Health Center, Durgawati and considering her condition to Trauma
Center, Varanasi. This followed the FIR.
4. The unfortunate part of the present case is/are that the
opposite parties are husband and son of the petitioner no. 2,
Reshma Devi @ Reshmi while petitioner no. 1 is the daughter and
sister respectively of the two opposite parties.
5. Considering the situation where the family members
are involved in the present case, despite taking note of the fact that
the injury led to the ladies being shifted to Primary Health Centre,
Durgawati and then to Trauma Center, Varanasi, on the
undertaking given by the petitioners that till the breaking of the
ice, they shall not have any contact with the two ladies and shall
never trespass their residence and further as a token of respect,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85524 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
3/4
shall be paying Rs. 25,000/- each, relief was granted on
24.07.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 45939 of 2024 (Sheo Kumar Ram &
Anr. vs. State of Bihar).
6. The present cancellation petition has been filed by the
two ladies through the Patna High Court Legal Services
Committee (henceforth for short ‘the Committee’) alleging that
both the father and son (opposite parties herein) are continuing
with their threatening attitude and are also sending other persons
to threaten/trespass the residence at Kaimur. It is to be noted that
the opposite parties reside at Supaul while the petitioners herein
(the ladies) are residing at Kaimur.
7. Notice was issued to the opposite parties and Mr.
Tribhuwan Narayan represent them. He has filed a counter
affidavit which shows that though belatedly, the payments were
made to the ladies. In paragraph 16, it has been recorded that the
opposite parties never threatened to the petitioners and the
allegation is false. As recorded above, an unfortunate situation is
there, on the one hand, the father and son are accused and on the
other hand, the mother and daughter are at the receiving end.
8. Mr. Madan Mohan has provided photocopies to show
the assault that took place.
9. This Court, on the earlier occasion, expected the
families to come to terms and join their hands, it seems that they
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85524 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
4/4
have moved separately and there is point of no return.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has
become impossible for the ladies to live due to continuous
threatening posture of the opposite parties.
11. Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan submits that after the order
passed, they have disassociated themselves from the ladies and
once again, an undertaking has been given that neither the father-
son nor anyone related to them shall in any way have any truck
with the two ladies, namely, Shashi Prabha Kumari and Reshma
Devi @ Reshmi. He further submits that everyone uses mobiles
and in case, either of the two opposite parties try to contact or take
any step through any other person, it will be recorded in the CDR
and in that case, the Court will be free to take action if after the
undertaking, any further allegation comes.
12. In that background, this Court refrains from
canceling the bail earlier granted to the two opposite parties
cautioning them not to have any truck with the two ladies
(petitioners herein).
13. Cr. Misc. No. 85524 of 2025 is disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…