Patna High Court
Sabuja DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
If the compromise petition is verified as genuine, the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond and the conditions of Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of villagers, were charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly assaulting an informant’s family and stealing Rs. 80,000. They claimed innocence, asserted that the matter had been compromised with the informant, and highlighted their clean antecedent. The State opposed the pre‑arrest bail, while the petitioners’ counsel sought release pending investigation. The Court examined the FIR, the alleged compromise, and the precedent set in Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., emphasizing that a genuine compromise can justify bail. The Court directed the District Court to verify the compromise and, if found genuine, to grant pre‑arrest bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the CrPC and verification of any other criminal antecedents. The order will lapse automatically if the petitioners are found involved in other cases.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a case involving offences under Sections 191(2), 329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 76, 30, 3(2), 352 and 351(2) of the IPC.
- Whether a compromise between the petitioners and the informant negates the necessity for pre‑arrest detention.
- Whether the petitioners’ alleged clean antecedent influences the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115, 117, 118, 126, 191, 3, 30, 329, 351, 352, 76
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- compromise
- assault
- robbery
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482 CrPC
- Naushey Ali precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87217 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2025 Thana- ALAMNAGAR District- Madhepura
======================================================
1. Sabuja Devi, Female, Aged About 65 years, W/o Bahadur Mistri
2. Bahadur Mistri @ Bahadur Sharma, Male, Aged about 70 years, S/o Late
Anik Mistri
3. Reena Devi @ Reen Devi, Female, Aged About 39 year, W/o Indal Mistri
4. Juli Devi, Female, Aged About 35 years, W/o Govind Mistri
5. Reena Devi @ Reen Devi, Female, Aged About 41 years, W/O Pawan Mistri
6. Fulan Devi, Female, Aged About 45 years, W/O Sharvan Mistri
7. Suraj Kumar, Male, Aged about 18 years, S/O Pawan Mistri @ Paswan Mis-
tri
8. Guarav Kumar @ Gaurav Kumar Sharma @ Gaurav Mistri, Male, Aged
about 26 years, S/O Sharvan Mistri @ Pawan Mistri
9. Krishna Kumar, Male, Aged about 18 years, S/O Pawan Mistri @ Govind
Sharma @ Govind Mistri
All R/O Village-Ward no 15, Alamnagar, P.S-Alamnagar, District-Madhep-
ura, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhaskar Anand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 16-01-2026 Heard Mr. Bhaskar Anand, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Jagdhar Prasad,
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Alamnagar P.S. Case No. 110/2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Section 191(2), 329(4), 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 76, 30, 3(2), 352 and 351(2) of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87217 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
petitioners along with other co-accused persons had entered into
house of the informant and had assaulted her and her other
family members causing injury and had also took away Rs.
80,000/- cash from the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and have
falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted
that now the matter has been compromised between the
petitioners and the informant. Petitioners have clean antecedent.
On these grounds, petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest
bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR. The conduct of the informant is not very
convincing, as she has entered into compromise with the
petitioners and after informant having entered into the
compromise, observation can be made with regard to the law
laid down by the Apex Court in case of Naushey Ali Vs. State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87217 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
of U.P., reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78.
7. Learned District Court is directed to verify the
compromise petition (Annexure-P/3 to the bail petition) and if it
is found to be genuine, the petitioners, above named, are
directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their
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) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Udakishunganj/ Concerned Court in
connection with Alamnagar P.S. Case No. 110/2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found that the
petitioners are 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.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…