Patna High Court
Bajanti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. and 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioners, three women, were implicated in a FIR alleging they murdered a woman by strangulation, based on an informant's claim. The FIR charged them under Sections 108, 3(5) and 238 of the B.N.S., 2023. The post‑mortem report and the investigating officer’s statement indicated that the victim died of asphyxia due to drowning, contradicting the murder allegation. The petitioners argued they had clean antecedents and were falsely implicated, seeking anticipatory bail. The State opposed the bail but also accepted the drowning cause of death. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to bail bonds and sureties, invoking Sections 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the FIR alleging murder.
- Whether the post‑mortem finding of death by drowning negates the prosecution’s case of homicide.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 108, 238, 3(5)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- post‑mortem report
- drowning
- Criminal Procedure Code
- B.N.S. Act
- sections 108, 3(5), 238
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86133 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-470 Year-2025 Thana- BIKRAM District- Patna
======================================================
1. Bajanti Devi W/o- Kameshwar Paswan R/v- Sarwan Bhadsara PS- Bikram
Dist- Patna
2. Puja Devi W/o- Suraj Paswan @ Suraj R/v- Sarwan Bhadsara PS - Bikram
Dist- Patna
3. Sonali Kumari @ Saloni Kumari D/o- Kameshwar Paswan R/v- Sarwan
Bhadsara PS- Bikram Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Anupam Bahadur, Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sunny Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Piyush Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umanath Mishra, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 07-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 3(5) and
238 of the BNS, 2023.
3. The Investigating Officer of the case, in compliance
of the order dated 10.03.2026, is present in the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are women and
the informant alleges that her daughter was married to Sudama
about 15 years back. Further, on 26.09.2025, Sudama called her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86133 of 2025(5) dt.07-04-2026
2/4
and informed that he has come to Darbhanga and a call had come
from his house informing that victim consumed poison,
accordingly, the informant reached the place of occurrence but
found the door locked and no one was present in the house. It is
next alleged that her second son-in-law Deepak called the
informant and informed that victim has been taken to the hospital
by Suraj, Puja, Bajanti, Kameshwar and Sonali and the Doctor
informed that the victim died, hence, they fled with the dead body
thereafter the informant started searching the children of her
daughter and three children were found and the elder daughter
disclosed that uncle Suraj was strangulating the victim while Puja
was holding her leg and Kameshwar (grandfather) told Suraj to put
clothes in the mouth of the victim so that she dies, thus, alleges
that accused persons including the petitioners killed her daughter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the victim
was married to Sudama about 15 years back and in these 15 years
no case ever came to be instituted either by the victim or the
informant alleging torture by the accused persons. It is next
submitted that husband of the deceased is not an accused in the
instant FIR. It is also submitted that the informant based on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86133 of 2025(5) dt.07-04-2026
3/4
disclosure made by the elder daughter of the victim alleged that it
was Suraj along with other named accused persons involved in
killing of the deceased but then it is submitted that from perusal of
the postmortem report, it would manifest that the victim died on
account of drowning, as such, the allegation as alleged in the FIR
gets belied from the postmortem report.
6. On query of the Court from the Investigating Officer
about the case, the Investigating Officer also very fairly submitted
that the cause of death is asphyxia on account of drowning. It is
further submitted that even the statement of the daughter of the
victim was recorded wherein she stated that on the date of
occurrence she was in the school and she was informed that her
mother was unwell, as such, she came to the house but did not find
her mother but then she also disclosed that a day before she had
heard her grandmother talking to her uncle and were discussing
how to kill the victim. It is next submitted that during the course of
investigation, no such call from the grandmother to the uncle of
the daughter of the victim had gone.
7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that the victim had gone to the river for
taking bath where she got drowned but then for reasons best
known the informant falsely implicated the accused persons
including the petitioners excluding the husband of the victim
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86133 of 2025(5) dt.07-04-2026
4/4
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners but then fairly submits that the
cause of death as recorded in the postmortem report is asphyxia on
account of drowning.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let
the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is
pending/Successor Court in connection with Bikram P.S. Case No.
470 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
10. The personal appearance of the Investigating Officer
of the case is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.