Patna High Court
Renu DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to conditions, as the FIR appears to be fabricated and they have a clean antecedent.
Summary
The petitioners, Renu Devi and Pankaj Kumar, parents of accused Anish Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.144 of 2025 alleging offences under Sections 64(1), 69, 89 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were involved in the illegal termination of a pregnancy and the subsequent death of the child. The petitioners contended that the FIR was fabricated, they have a clean antecedent, and they are being implicated merely because of their relationship to the co‑accused. The Court examined whether anticipatory bail could be granted despite the serious nature of the allegations and considered the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. Finding no material to deny bail and noting the petitioners' clean record, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions, including cooperation with the trial and no tampering with evidence or witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail despite being named in the FIR solely on the basis of their relationship to the co‑accused.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a ground to deny anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023.
- Whether the petitioners' clean antecedent and the claim of a fabricated FIR justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 3(5), 482(2), 64(1), 69, 89
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- fabricated FIR
- parental liability
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87319 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2025 Thana- PHULWARIA District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Renu Devi W/o Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Mahto
2. Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Mahto S/o Late Rambalak Mahto
Both R/o Village - Phulwaria (Phulwaria - 03), Barauni Nagar Parishad,
Ward No. 12, Near - NH -28, Bakhtar Sthan, P.S - Phulwaria, District -
Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-01-2026 Heard Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Phulwaria P.S.Case No.144 of 2025, FIR dated
18.09.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 64(1),69,89,3(5) of BNS, 2023.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant
Anshu Kumari worked in the field of Anish Kumar. In the
meantime, she came in contact with Anish Kumar and she used
to visit at his house. Anish Kumar made physical intercourse
with her on the pretext of marriage due to which she became
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87319 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/4
pregnant and after that she told about this fact to Anish Kumar,
his parents and sister-in-law Sulena Devi. On 10.09.2025 when
she suffered from stomach ache then she informed all the
accused persons including the petitioners and her elder sister
Muskan Kumari came near her and after that all the accused
persons took her at Life Care Clinic where by surgical operation
her child was brought out, who was dead. After operation,
Pankaj Mahto & Sulena Devi stayed at the clinic for 3-4 days
and when her parents was informed then Pankaj Mahto &
Sulena Devi ran away, after leaving her at hospital.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have clean antecedent. The allegation as alleged in
the FIR is false and fabricated. From a bare perusal of the FIR
it appears that the main allegation against co-accused person,
namely, Anish Kumar, who happens to be the son of the
petitioners and co-accused person, namely, Sulena Devi, who
happens to be the aunt of co-accused person, namely, Anish
Kumar, has been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by a
Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
02.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.82330 of 2025. Petitioner
No.1 is mother and petitioner No.2 is father of co-accused
person, namely, Anish Kumar.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87319 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
3/4
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has
vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioners have
clean antecedent, they have been made accused in the present
case merely on the ground that they are parents of co-accused
person, namely, Anish Kumar and co-accused person, namely,
Sulena Devi, who happens to be the aunt of co-accused person,
namely, Anish Kumar, has been granted privilege of anticipatory
bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, let the
petitioners, above named, in the event of their 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)each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Begusarai in connection with
Phulwaria P.S.Case No.144 of 2025, 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) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87319 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
4/4
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(II) If the petitioners tamper 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 petitioners and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.