Neha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3652 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-280 Year-2025 Thana- GOVINDGANJ District- East Champaran ====================================================== Neha Kumari W/O Praveen Kumar R/O Village- Madhopur Hazari, P.SSahebganj, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Govindganj P.S. Case No. 280 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 303(2), 336(4), 340(1), 340(2), 308(5), 61(2) and 111(1) of the BNS.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.10.2025, the informant received a telephone call from mobile number 7371926776, wherein the caller introduced himself as Chandan Singh. He offered to sell gold jewellery and called the informant to Imilia Madhopur Hazari, Sahibganj, District Muzaffarpur. Acting upon the inducement, the informant visited
2/4 the place on 28.10.2025, where accused Chandan Singh showed him gold jewellery worth crores of rupees, thereby gaining his confidence. Subsequently, on 20.11.2025, the informant, along with his friends, carrying cash of Rs. 19,00,000/- went to purchase the jewellery by his Honda City car. It is alleged that co-accused Chandan Singh, deliberately misled the informant on multiple locations, under the false pretext of finalising the deal. Finally at Radhiya Road, co-accused Chandan Singh, met the informant and took him and his friends to the house of Amresh Pandey, falsely claiming it to be his own house. While engaging the informant in conversation co-accused Chandan Singh called his associates. On his call 7-8 associates arrived on motorcycles, surrounded the informant and his friends and forcibly robbed cash of Rs. 19,00,000/- a gold chain weighing about 25 grams, and iPhone 16 Pro Max of the informant and his freinds.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that, even as per the prosecution version, the petitioner, who is a lady, is not alleged to be among the persons who lured the informant, offered to sell any house or gold ornaments, or participated in the alleged transaction. It is
3/4 further submitted that, according to the prosecution story itself, the informant allegedly met Chandan Singh, who took him to the house of Amresh Pandey, whereafter 7-8 unknown persons arrived on 3-4 motorcycles and allegedly robbed Rs. 19,00,000/-, a mobile phone, and a gold chain. No specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner, nor there is any allegation that any female person participated in the alleged occurrence. Petitioner being a lady is languishing in judicial custody since 23.11.2025 and a statement has been made in para 3 of the bail petition that she has clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and considering the period under custody, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail after framing of charge on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate -1, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Govindganj P.S. Case No. 280 of 2025 subject to the following conditions :- (i). Petitioner will remain physically present in trial on each and every date till the disposal of the case failing which, on
4/4 two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond of the petitioner may be cancelled by the Trial Court. (ii). One of the bailor shall be his family member. (S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Ankit Kumar/- U T