Patna High Court
Pano DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court granted pre‑arrest bail to petitioners 1‑5 but denied it to petitioner 6, ordering his custody.
Summary
The petitioners, five women and one man from Belouri village, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case (Purnea Muffasil PS Case No. 250 of 2025) alleging assault and grievous injury under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 352 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The FIR alleges that the petitioners entered the informant's house, abused and assaulted her family, leading to serious injury and death. The petitioners contend they were falsely implicated in a land‑dispute‑related quarrel, that the FIR contains vague, omnibus allegations, and that the death was due to chronic disease, not assault. The State opposed bail. The Court observed that specific assault allegations were made only against two other accused and petitioner No. 6 (Vikash Rishi), and therefore denied bail to him, ordering his custody. The Court granted pre‑arrest bail to petitioners No. 1‑5 subject to a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of their criminal antecedents under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite the FIR alleging assault and grievous injury.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR are specific enough to justify denial of bail.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the BNSS permits the grant of pre‑arrest bail in this circumstance.
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- omnibus allegation
- land dispute
- assault
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91275 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2025 Thana- MUFFASIL PURNIA District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Pano Devi(F), age about 40 years, Wife of Prakash Rishi
2. Guddi Devi(F), age about 24 years, Wife of Manoj Rishi
3. Jyoti Devi(F), age about 20 years, wife of Anish Rishi
4. Manish Rishi(M), age about 22 years, Son of Prakash Rishi
5. Sumit Rishi(M), age about 18 years, Son of Prakash Rishi
6. Vikash Rishi(M), age about 22 years son of Vijay Rishi
All Resident of village - Belouri, Sri Ram Tola, Ward no. 42, P.S - Mufasil,
P.O - Purnea, District - Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kr. Jha, Advocate
Mr. Saurav Anand, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, Advocate
Mrs. Suman Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 19-03-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kr. Jha along with Mr. Saurav
Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners;
Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant and Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, learned APP for the
State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Purnea Muffasil P.S. Case No. 250 of 2025, registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1),
352, and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91275 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
2/4
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, all the
accused persons named therein including the petitioners had
entered into the house of the informant and had started abusing
them and assaulted the informant and her family members, due
to which, husband and son of the informant sustained grievous
injury.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and they have
falsely been implicated in the present case. The parties are co-
villagers and the case arises out of a pre-existing land dispute
regarding a common pathway. The FIR contains only omnibus
and vague allegations without attributing any specific overt act
to the petitioners. No such occurrence as alleged ever took
place, and the allegations are false and concocted. There was a
minor verbal altercation during Chhath Puja over obstruction of
the pathway. He further submitted that no act of assault or
criminal conduct, as alleged, was ever committed by the
petitioners. The husband of the informant was suffering from a
chronic illness and did not die due to any alleged assault. The
post-mortem report also confirms death due to cardio-
respiratory arrest caused by chronic liver disease. No injury
corresponding to the alleged occurrence has been found on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91275 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
3/4
body of the deceased. The FIR has been lodged with mala fide
intention to harass the petitioners and gain advantage in the civil
dispute. Petitioners have clean antecedent. On these grounds,
petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the FIR and the case
diary, it appears that the specific allegation of assault is against
one Manoranjan Jha, Manjeet Rishi, who are not before this
Court and Vikash Rishi, who is petitioner no. 6. I am not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner no. 6 (Vikash Rishi) on pre-
arrest bail.
7. Investigating Officer is directed to take the
petitioner no. 6 (Vikash Rishi) into custody forthwith.
8. So far as petitioners no. 1 to 5 are concerned, I find
that general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against
them and considering that there is every likelihood of these
petitioner to be acquitted in course of trial, the petitioners no. 1
to 5, above named, are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail,
in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned
District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91275 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
4/4
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned District Court where the case is pending, in
connection with Purnea Muffasil P.S. Case No. 250 of 2025,
subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the BNSS.
9. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioners no. 1 to 5 as stated
in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioners no. 1 to 5 as what has been
stated in paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force
automatically.
10. Accordingly, the present bail application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.