Patna High Court
Shanti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
Petitioner No.1, Shanti Devi, is entitled to pre‑arrest bail as there is no specific allegation against her and she has a clean antecedent.
Summary
The petitioners, Shanti Devi and Rajmatiya Devi, were implicated in FIR No.149 of 2025 for alleged assault on an informant and her family over a tree‑cutting dispute. They claimed innocence, asserting that any injury caused was in self‑defence and that they have clean antecedents. The informant’s counsel and the State opposed pre‑arrest bail, alleging grievous injury that led to the informant’s mother‑in‑law’s death. The Court examined the FIR and found no specific allegation against petitioner No.1, Shanti Devi, and noted her clean antecedent, concluding that she prima facie merits pre‑arrest bail. Accordingly, the Court ordered her release on pre‑arrest bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, and directed the District Court to verify her criminal record. Petitioner No.2 was advised to seek regular bail, and the application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether petitioner No.1 is entitled to pre‑arrest bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS despite the FIR allegations.
- Whether the FIR contains a specific allegation against petitioner No.1 sufficient to deny bail.
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 482
- self‑defence
- clean antecedent
- FIR
- assault
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87086 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2025 Thana- NAUTAN District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Shanti Devi W/o Kamlesh Ram R/o Village- Balua, Post- Sirisiya, P.S-
Nautan, Dist- Siwan.
2. Rajmatiya Devi W/o Dwarika Ram R/o Village- Balua, Post- Sirisiya, P.S-
Nautan Dist- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Shiv Sagar Sharma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Brajendra Nath
Pandey, learned APP for the State and Mr. Shiv Sagar Sharma,
learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Nautan P.S. Case No. 149 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2),
109, 74, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, all the
accused, including the petitioners, with common intention
assaulted the informant and her entire family members, who
sustained injury.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87086 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they
have falsely been implicated in the present case. Both the parties
are agnates. The allegation is against the petitioners, who are
female members of the family, that over a trivial matter of tree
cutting, the accused persons forcibly entered the house of the
informant, and the parties indulged in a fierce fight. The
petitioners, in their self-defence, may have caused some injury
on the person of the informant. The petitioners have clean
antecedent. On these grounds, the petitioners seek to be released
on pre-arrest bail.
5. Mr. Shiv Sagar Sharma, learned counsel for the
informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest
bail and submitted that the mother-in-law of the informant died
in course of treatment, who sustained grievous injury
attributable to the petitioners.
6. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR, I find that there is no specific allegation
against the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.1, in her self-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87086 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/4
defence, may have caused some injury on the person of the
informant. The petitioner no.1 is having clean antecedent and as
such, I am of the opinion that petitioner no.1 has, prima facie,
made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
8. The petitioner no.1, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of her arrest or surrender
before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is
pending/Concerned Court in connection with Nautan P.S. Case
No. 149 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
9. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner no.1 and if it is
found that the petitioner no.1 is involved in some other
cases, as what has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail
application, this order will automatically lose its force.
10. So far as, the petitioner no.2 is concerned, the
petitioner no.2, if so advised, may seek regular bail before
the learned District Court. The learned District Court is
directed to pass a necessary order, in accordance with law,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87086 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/4
on the basis of materials available on record, on the same
day, the bail application is filed, without any further delay
and without being prejudiced by any observation made by
this Court.
11. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…