Patna High Court
Priyanka KumariversusShanti Devi
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The bail order was not cancelled as the Court found no compelling reason to interfere.
Summary
The petitioner, Priyanka Kumari, sought cancellation of the regular bail granted to Shanti Devi, the mother‑in‑law of a co‑accused, in a murder case where her husband was shot after a CCTV‑recorded altercation. The petitioner alleged that the bail order ignored investigation material, including the post‑mortem report, and that Shanti Devi was implicated in the FIR. The High Court examined the FIR, case diary entries, and witness statements, noting that none directly named Shanti Devi, and considered her advanced age, health conditions, and custody since September 2024. The Court reiterated that the parameters for granting and cancelling bail differ and that cancellation requires glaring perversity or overwhelming new circumstances. Finding no such basis, the Court dismissed the application for cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the bail granted to Shanti Devi should be cancelled on the ground of new or overlooked evidence.
- Whether the FIR and witness statements sufficiently implicate Shanti Devi to warrant cancellation of bail.
- Whether the appellant has demonstrated any glaring perversity or overwhelming circumstances justifying interference with the bail order.
Subjects
- bail
- cancellation of bail
- regular bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- murder
- CCTV evidence
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88135 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2024 Thana- AIRPORT District- Patna
======================================================
Priyanka Kumari W/o Late Rakesh Kumar R/o vill - Sarwara, ward no. 1, P.s.
- Bajpatti, Distt.- Sitamarhi, at present tenant in the house of Awadesh Giri,
S/o Ramdeo Giri, R/o Kautilya Nagar, Choudhary Tola, in front of Pillar no.
52, P.S. - Hawai Adda, Town and Distt. Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Shanti Devi W/o Late Nanhak Choudhary R/o Mushahari Jagdeo Path, P.s. -
Hawai Adda, Distt.- Patna
2. The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jnan Chandra Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 19-01-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The present application for cancellation of bail has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated
11.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st,
Patna in Hawai Adda P.S. Case No. 87 of 2024, whereby regular
bail has been granted to the opposite party no.1.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed
for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.1, Shanti
Devi alleging that the said order has not considered the facts and
circumstances of the case and by overlooking the materials
collected during the course of investigation as also the
postmortem report, the present order has been passed granting
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88135 of 2024(4) dt.19-01-2026
2/5
regular bail to the opposite party no.1
4. The short facts of the case is that the informant
(petitioner herein) had received an information on mobile phone
by the police that her husband had been shot at, whereafter he
was admitted to Paras Hospital and the informant (petitioner
herein) also arrived at the hospital to find her husband
undergoing treatment. At around 1:30 a.m. in the night, she was
informed by the Doctor that her husband has succumbed to the
injuries received, whereafter she came back home. It has been
alleged that in the next morning the police officials of the Hawai
Adda P.S. had shown her the CCTV footage wherein she
identified one Anant Kumar, who was in a situation of
altercation with her husband and had also called 4 to 5 of his
friends as also his mother-in-law, Shanti Devi (O.P. No.1 herein)
and all indulged in altercation. It has further been stated that she
saw in the CCTV footage that on the order of Anant Kumar, his
friend fired shot at her husband due to which he fell down and
subsequently, was brought to Paras Hospital by the Police,
where he died during the course of treatment.
5. Having gone through the First Information
Report and the order granting bail to the opposite party no.1, it
appears that the opposite party no.1 has only been mentioned in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88135 of 2024(4) dt.19-01-2026
3/5
the First Information Report, which was lodged upon witnessing
the CCTV footage, as one of the persons, who was also present
at the place of occurrence. There is direct allegation, however, in
the First Information Report that there was a scuffle with Anant
Kumar and it was at his order that his friends have resorted to
firing. It has been considered in the order granting bail that she
has been implicated on account of the fact that she happens to
be the mother-in-law of the co-accused Anant Kumar @ Anant
Chaudhary who stays in the same locality. The submission with
regard to opposite party no.1 being a 65 years old lady with
heart ailments as well as being diabetic has also been noted. The
submission has also been noticed that there are no chances of
the opposite party no.1 absconding or tampering with the
witness and that she is in custody since 14.09.2024. So far as the
materials collected during the course of investigation is
concerned, the same has also been considered by the learned
Court concerned as paragraph-24 of the case diary has been
referred from which it appears that the informant was shown the
CCTV footage once again where she did not take the name of
the opposite party no.1. In any view of the matter, this fact has
also been considered that the F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis
of the CCTV footage according to which the allegation is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88135 of 2024(4) dt.19-01-2026
4/5
confined to an unknown person resorting to firing at the behest
of co-accused Anant Kumar. The reference has also been made
to paragraph nos. 11, 12, 13 and 25 of the case diary indicating
that the witnesses examined in these paragraphs have also not
taken the name of the opposite party no.1, however, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that
although the name of the opposite party no.1 has not been taken
but witnesses have stated that they identified the lady to be
residing in the same locality. Therefore, considering the old and
advanced age of the opposite party no.1, coupled with the fact
that she remained in custody since 14.09.2024, the learned
Court was pleased to grant regular bail to the opposite party
no.1.
6. The law with regard to cancellation of bail is
settled and there can be no dispute on the fact that the
parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of the same are
totally different and until and unless this Court finds any glaring
perversity in the order granting bail to the opposite party no.1 or
any other cogent and overwhelming circumstances, it would not
be desirable for this Court to interfere with the said order by
cancelling the same.
7. Taking into consideration all the above-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88135 of 2024(4) dt.19-01-2026
5/5
mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering the law laid down with respect to cancellation of
bail, this Court finds no good reason to entertain the present
application for cancellation of bail of the opposite party no.1 as
such, the present application is dismissed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…