Patna High Court
Basanti Devi @ BasantiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond and surety conditions, under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS.
Summary
Basanti Devi, a government employee, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case alleging offences under several sections of the BNS, stemming from a dispute with a neighbour who alleged an assault on her and her family. The petitioner argued she has a clean record, that the FIR was lodged two days after the incident, and that the case was false and motivated by a drainage dispute. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the alleged offences. The court examined the allegations, the delay in filing the FIR, and the petitioner’s claim of false implication, and considered the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS. It granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs 5,000 and two sureties, with conditions for surrender within six weeks, thereby protecting the petitioner from arrest pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged offences under the BNS.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the claim of false implication justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar Negotiable and Securities Act
- false implication
- women's rights
- government employee
- drainage dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86265 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2025 Thana- MANSURCHAK District- Begusarai
======================================================
Basanti Devi @ Basanti Wife of Nandlal Mahto Resident of village-
Sahilwara PS - Mansurchak District - Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Nirmala Kumari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 303(2), 74, 75, 125, 109 and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and
the informant alleges that she was going to attend the call of
nature on 07.09.2025 at 04:30 p.m. when Vikash intercepted her
and forcefully tried to take her to his house and on alarm her
husband and mother-in-law came to save her but the named
accused persons including the petitioner came and petitioner
assaulted her by Musal causing injury on her head while
Nandlal and Bibha assaulted the mother-in-law of the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86265 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
causing injury on her right hand while her husband received
injury on his face and Vikash took her chain.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant being the mother of Vikash. It is further submitted
that petitioner and the informant are neighbours and are having
dispute relating to drainage but then the instant false case came
to be instituted alleging that Vikash was trying to act
inappropriately with the informant. It is next submitted that no
doubt petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the informant by
Musal causing injury on her head which has been opined to be
grievous but then the blow was not repeated. It is also submitted
that petitioner has been implicated also for the reason that she is
government employee and is the sole earning member of the
family, as such, by implicating her, the entire family would be
coerced and the dispute relating to drain would automatically be
solved in favour of the informant and her side. It is further
submitted that the date of occurrence is 07.09.2025 and the FIR
came to be instituted on 09.09.2025 i.e. after a delay of two days
which also shows that by way of afterthought the petitioner
came to be implicated being a government servant.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86265 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above-named, in the
event of her arrest or surrender before the learned trial court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand) 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 Mansurchak P.S.
Case No. 97 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…