Patna High Court
Lalita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Lalita Devi, the wife of Kari Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail in a murder case where her husband and his son Bijay Kumar were alleged to have killed Rajdeep Kumar in their house. The FIR charges under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner claimed she was unaware of any plan to murder and that she is an elderly woman with no direct allegation against her. The State argued that the murder was motivated by an illicit relationship between the deceased and the petitioner, indicating her involvement. Considering the gravity of the offence, the seriousness of the charges and the petitioner’s presence in the FIR, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. The application for anticipatory bail was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given the allegations and seriousness of the offence
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement and the gravity of the charges preclude the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- BNS, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- BNS 2023
- gravity of offence
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9435 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2025 Thana- Bhatni District- Madhepura
======================================================
Lalita Devi Wife of kari yadav Resident of village- Barahkurwa, Ward no. 15,
Ps- Bhatni, Dist- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 28-04-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
arises out of Bhatni Police Station Case No. 47 of 2025,
disclosing offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the
BNS, 2023.
3. As per the FIR, on 04.09.2025, Rajdeep Kumar,
son of the informant, was called by Bijay Kumar, son of Kari
Yadav, to his home in the night and was asked to stay in the
night and after taking meal, the deceased stayed in the house of
the accused persons. So it has been alleged that in the night,
head of the deceased was cut through sharp cutting weapon and
the accused persons tried to conceal the dead body. However,
the neighbor woke up and informed the police and the dead body
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9435 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
was recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is wife of Kari Yadav and there was friendship
between co-accused Bijay Kumar and the deceased Rajdeep
Kumar who stayed on the date of occurrence in the house of the
petitioner. Petitioner, being a lady, was not aware about the plan
of her son and her husband to kill Rajdeep Kumar in the night.
The petitioner is an old lady and there is no direct allegation
against her to connect her with the present offence.
5. Learned counsel for the state, on the other hand,
argued that during course of investigation, it has come to light
that there was illicit relationship between the deceased and the
wife of co-accused Kari Yadav for the last five years. The
deceased had also given a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to Bijay Kumar for
construction of house. On the date occurrence, while the
deceased was returning back after irrigating his field in the night
at about 2:30 am, he entered into the house of the co-accused
Bijay Kumar and there all the family members have killed the
deceased Rajdeep Kumar. The murder has been committed by
the accused persons due to illicit relationship between wife of
Kari Yadav and the deceased.
6. Having regard to the submissions made on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9435 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
3/3
behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the gravity of
offense and the severity of punishment and the petitioner is
named in the FIR and during course of investigation, it has
come that the deceased was killed in the house of the accused
persons, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner
privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application is, accordingly, rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-
U T
Checking your session…