Sunaina Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2585 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2023 Thana- SRINAGAR District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Sunaina Devi wife of Virendra Raut Resident of village- Khoda Bazar Ps -Srinagar District -West Champaran 2.
Bullet Raut @ Bullet Sah son of virendra Raut Resident of village- Khoda Bazar Ps -Srinagar District -West Champaran 3.
Suhagin Devi Daughter of virendra Raut Resident of village- Khoda Bazar Ps -Srinagar District -West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Jai Narain Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Srinagar P.S. Case No. 123 of 2023 dated 19.09.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the petitioners along with others had assaulted the husband of the informant. It has further been alleged that one Virendra Raut assaulted the husband of the informant with lathi causing head injury and he died on the spot.
2/4
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from bare perusal of the F.I.R., it would be evident that there is general and omnibus allegation of assault against the petitioners however that too is a super addition as there is specific allegation against Virendra Raut, who assaulted the husband of the informant on his head upon which he died. It has further been submitted that two of the petitioners are ladies and they have merely been shown as the members of mob however, no specific attribution of overt act has been levelled against them. It has further been submitted that there was dispute between the family and on account of such dispute, there was an altercation which had taken place between the petitioners and the informant's husband. It has lastly been submitted that the 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 submits that the petitioners were also said to have been involved in assault upon the deceased and therefore, they should not be released on anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into account the fact that the specific allegation is upon one Virendra Raut, the petitioners above named, are
3/4 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 Srinagar P.S. Case No. 123 of 2023, 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 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
4/4 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