Patna High Court
Sunita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions, as the allegations did not constitute a sufficient ground to deny bail.
Summary
The petitioners – Sunita Devi, Rakhi Kumari, Sami Devi and Shrawan Kumar – sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with a criminal case (Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 170 of 2025) alleging offences under Sections 103(1), 61 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners had assaulted and threatened the informant’s husband, but the petitioners contended that the allegations were false and stemmed from a long‑standing land dispute, noting that the informant was not an eyewitness and that there was no specific allegation of an overt act by them. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, claiming the petitioners were involved in the alleged killing. After considering the submissions and the lack of concrete evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged assault, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions, including bail bonds, sureties, and personal appearance at each trial date. The order also stipulated that any concealment of criminal antecedents could lead to cancellation of bail, and clarified that the observations in the order would not affect the trial. The application was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC read with Section 482 B.N.S. given the allegations of assault and threat.
- Whether the informant’s testimony constitutes sufficient prima facie evidence to deny bail.
- Whether the alleged land dispute and lack of eyewitness evidence justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5), 482(2), 61
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.
- false implication
- land dispute
- bail conditions
- Bihar criminal law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90247 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2025 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Sunita Devi W/O Sri Ashok Paswan Resident of village-Baniyadih, PS
-Wazirganj, District- Gayaji.
2. Rakhi Kumari D/o Sri Ashok Paswan R/o village- Baniyadih, P.S.
-Wazirganj, District- Gayaji.
3. Sami Devi @ Sami Kumari D/o Sri Ashok Paswan R/o village- Baniyadih,
P.S. -Wazirganj, District- Gayaji.
4. Shrawan Kumar S/o Sri Ashok Paswan R/o village- Baniyadih, P.S.
-Wazirganj, District- Gayaji.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Isha Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Meena Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 170 of 2025 dated 26.03.2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61
and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the
informant has alleged that the co-accused, Vikram Singh and
Chhotu Singh assaulted the husband of the informant and
dragged him towards Laxmipur village. It is alleged that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90247 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
Shrawan Kumar, Jay Kumar and Subhash Kumar were also
seen. It is further alleged that the reason behind the occurrence
was that on 04.03.2025, the other co-accused persons namely,
Sunita Devi, Rakhi Kumari and Sami Devi (petitioners) had
assaulted them and threatened them to kill.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners have falsely been implicated merely because
there is a long standing land dispute between the parties. It has
further been submitted that admittedly, it would appear that the
informant has not seen the occurrence and has only raised a
suspicion. It has further been submitted that there is no specific
allegation of overt act against the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 as far as
the incident that is stated to have occurred on 24.03.2025. It has
also been submitted that there is no specific allegation of assault
against any of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has pointed out that during the course of
investigation, the son of the informant was examined and from
para 13 of his statement, it would appear, the informant had
gone to her mother’s house along with her son prior to the
incident and therefore it has been stated that the informant
could not have in all possibility been an eye witness to the
alleged occurrence. It has lastly been submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90247 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
petitioners have clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and
stated that the informant has alleged that the petitioners were
involved in killing of her husband.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the
parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of
the case, the petitioners above named, are directed to be released
on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on
furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten
Thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Wazirganj P.S. Case
No. 170 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of BNSS as well as subject to the
following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90247 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the
petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) The trial court 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 trial
court shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bonds 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.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…