Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sabita Davi @ Babita Devi @ Savita DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The condition that one bailor shall be a close family member is read as requiring a local resident bailor.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of relatives from Kuari Khurd, filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking modification of an anticipatory bail order dated 26-11-2025, which required that one of the bailors be a close family member. They argued that all their family members were co-accused, making it impossible to satisfy the condition. The Court, after hearing counsel, allowed the modification, interpreting the condition to mean that one bailor should be a local resident of the petitioners instead of a close family member. The period for furnishing the bail bond was extended by four weeks. Consequently, the original bail order was modified as directed.

Issues considered

  • Whether a condition in an anticipatory bail order requiring a bailor to be a close family member can be enforced when no such family member is available.
  • Whether the condition can be read to require a local resident bailor instead of a close family member.

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • modification of bail conditions
  • family member bailor
  • local resident bailor
  • Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90806 of 2025
                                              In
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76087 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-610 Year-2025 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
           1.     Sabita Davi @ Babita Devi @ Savita Devi Wife of Harendra Paswan @
                  Harind paswan Resident of Village- Kuari Khurd, P.s.- Hajipur Sadar, and
                  Dist.- Vaishali
           2.    Hulsi Devi Wife of Mahendra Paswan @ Mahindra Paswan Resident of
                 Village- Kuari Khurd, P.s.- Hajipur Sadar, and Dist.- Vaishali
           3.    Neetu Devi @ Nitu Devi Wife of Kamal Paswan Resident of Village- Kuari
                 Khurd, P.s.- Hajipur Sadar, and Dist.- Vaishali
           4.    Mahendra Paswan @ Mahindra Paswan son of Inrpat Paswan Resident of
                 Village- Kuari Khurd, P.s.- Hajipur Sadar, and Dist.- Vaishali
           5.    Harendra Paswan @ Harind Paswan son of Mahendra Paswan @ Mahindra
                 Paswan Resident of Village- Kuari Khurd, P.s.- Hajipur Sadar, and Dist.-
                 Vaishali

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-01-2026                  Learned Advocate for the respective parties are

                   present.

                                2. The present application has been filed seeking

                   modification of the order dated 26.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.

                   No.76087 of 2025, whereby while extending the privilege of

                   anticipatory bail, one of the conditions was “One of the bailors

                   shall be the own/close family members of the petitioners”.

                                3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90806 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
                                                          2/2




                        all the family members of the petitioners have been made

                        accused in the present case and there is none to stand as bailor

                        on theirs behalf.

                                     3. In view of the submissions advanced by the learned

                        Advocate for the petitioner and taking note of the averments

                        made in the modification application, the same stands allowed.

                                     4. The condition to the extent that “One of the bailors

                        shall be the own/close family members of the petitioners” shall

                        be read as “One of the bailors shall be the local residents of the

                        petitioners”.

                                     5. The period for furnishing bail bond is extended for

                        a further period of four weeks from today.

                                     6. The order dated 26.11.2025 stands modified to the

                        extent indicated above.



                                                    (Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.