Nanki Devi @ Nanhki DeviversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86894 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2024 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Nanki Devi @ Nanhki Devi W/o- Dinesh Prasad Resident of Village - Badiha,
                 P.S. - Dhanarua, District - Patna

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Shyamal Prakash, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Mohammed Arif, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-01-2026                  Heard Mr.Shyamal Prakash, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr.Mohammed Arif, learned Additional Public

                   Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. Petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection

                   with Dhanarua P.S. Case No.180 of 2024, dated 11.04.2024

                   registered      for    the   offences      punishable      under      Sections

                   147,341,323,325,324,307,379,504 of IPC.

                                3. The prosecution story, in nutshell, besides the

                   ancillary fact is that on 19.03.2024 at about 11.00 hrs in

                   morning the informant along with his daughter and son in-law

                   were cutting Masuri pulse crop and meanwhile his gotiyas

                   named accused persons in FIR including, petitioner came there

                   armed with iron rod and iron sharp cutting article (Fasuli) and

                   claimed that land to be of their land and for this scuffle took
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86894 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
                                            2/4




          place and all FIR named accused persons attacked and assaulted

          him with iron rod due to which his both hands and left leg me

          fractured and it is also alleged that Suraj Kumar attacked with

          Fasuli due to which informant sustained severe head cut injury

          and Vikash Kumar snatched his mobile and also Rs.6000/-kept

          in his pocket and when his daughter came to rescue him, they

          also assaulted her due to which she sustained severe head injury

          and both informant and his daughter fell unconscious.

                       4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

          submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the

          present case. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR but

          from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no

          specific allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against

          the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation

          against the petitioner in the FIR. Petitioner and the informant

          are agnates to each other. From a bare perusal of the FIR it

          appears that the date of occurrence as alleged in the FIR is

          22.03.2024 but the present FIR has been instituted on

          11.04.2024 which suggests that the present FIR has been

          instituted after delay of about more than 15 days without giving

          any explanation of delay which suggests that the present FIR

          has been instituted afterthought only to falsely implicate the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86894 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
                                            3/4




          petitioner and her other family members in the present case.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

          opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and

          submits that the petitioner carries three more cases other than

          the present one but fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in

          all the cases, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts, there is no specific

          allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against the

          petitioner and FIR has been instituted after delay of about more

          than 15 days, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of her

          arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of

          thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on

          bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000 (Ten Thousand) with

          two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

          learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Masaurhi, Patna in

          connection with Dhanarua P.S. Case No.180 of 2024, subject to

          the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of

          Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with

          other following conditions:-

                       (I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

          properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court

          and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86894 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
                                                           4/4




                         on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

                         reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                                      (II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

                         witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

                         for cancellation of bail.

                                      (III) And, further condition that the court below shall

                         verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

                         any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his/her

                         criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

                         cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

                         acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                         shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                         verification.



                                                (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-

U          T