Patna High Court
Nilam Devi @ Lilam DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to Nilam Devi but denied to Pappu Kumar.
Summary
The petitioners Nilam Devi and Pappu Kumar were named in FIR No.89 of 2025 for alleged assault, robbery, and molestation under various sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. They filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. The court observed that the FIR contains specific allegations against Pappu Kumar for assaulting the informant's brother, resulting in grievous injury, but makes no direct allegation against Nilam Devi. Consequently, the court denied anticipatory bail to Pappu Kumar while granting it to Nilam Devi subject to strict conditions, including a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and compliance with procedural directives. The order also imposed conditions for cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether Nilam Devi is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the FIR not specifically alleging an offence against her.
- Whether Pappu Kumar should be granted anticipatory bail given the serious assault allegations in the FIR.
- Whether the FIR sufficiently discloses charges to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 333, 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2), 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- assault
- robbery
- molestation
- FIR
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89104 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- BARABAR TOURIST District- Jehanabad
======================================================
1. Nilam Devi @ Lilam Devi W/o Satyendra Yadav R/o vill - Misharbigha
(Mishirbigha), P.s.- Vishunganj, Distt.- Jehanabad
2. Pappu Kumar @ Sanuj Kumar S/o Satyendra Yadav R/o vill - Misharbigha
(Mishirbigha), P.s.- Vishunganj, Distt.- Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anish Chandra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 Heard Mr.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Anish Chandra, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Barabar Tourism (Vishunganj) P.S.Case
No.89 of 2025, FIR dated 17.08.2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 333,
303(2), 109, 74, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
3. Stated in brief the prosecution case as per the
written application of the informant Sangita Kumari is that
on 15.08.2025 at about 9.20 o'clock while the informant
was at her home the petitioners along with accused persons
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89104 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/5
equipped with Lathi, Danda iron rod and Khanti came there
and entered into her house and they began to abuse her. On
protest the petitioner Pappu Kumar caught hold the
informant's mother and the accused Satyendra Yadav
assaulted the informant's mother by means of iron rod as a
result of which she sustained head injury. It is further
alleged that when the informant’s brother Kamlesh Kumar
came to intervene then the petitioner Pappu Kumar
assaulted on his mouth by means of butt of pistol due to
which his tooth was broken. When the informant came to
save her brother then the co-accused Rajesh Yadav pushed
the informant by catching her hair. It is further alleged that
in course of Marpit, the petitioner Nilam Devi and the co-
accused Amrita Kumari snatched Juitiya worth Rs. 40.000
from the neck of the informant’s mother and the petitioner
Pappu Kumar tried to molest the informant. Thereafter, the
injured were brought to Referral Hospital, Makhdumpur
from where they were referred to Magadh Medical, Gaya
for better treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have clean antecedent. The allegation as alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89104 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/5
in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioners have
not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. From a
bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no specific
allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against
petitioner No.1, Nilam Devi @ Lilam Devi. As per FIR,
there is specific allegation against petitioner No.2, namely,
Pappu Kumar @ Sanuj Kumar that he has assaulted to the
brother of the informant due to which brother of the
informant has received the injry and the injury report of the
brother of the informant suggests that the injury is grievous
in nature.
5. Considering the nature of allegation against
petitioner No.2, namely, Pappu Kumar @ Sanuj Kumar, I
am not inclined to grant him privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Prayer is refused.
7. There is no specific allegation against petitioner
No.1, Nilam Devi @ Lilam Devi in the FIR.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand,
has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner No.1,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89104 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
4/5
Nilam Devi @ Lilam Devi has clean, let petitioner No.1,
Nilam Devi @ Lilam Devi, 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, Jahanabad in
connection with Barabar Tourism (Vishunganj) P.S.Case
No.89 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) 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 on his/her absence on two consecutive dates
without sufficient reason, his/her bail bonds 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89104 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
5/5
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
Checking your session…