Babita Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6423 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2025 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Nawada ====================================================== Babita Devi W/O Arjun Yadav Resident Of Village - Mahuari, P.S- Sitamarhi, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Satrudhan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.112 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 103, 61(2) of the B.N.S.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant was married in the year 2016 with Guddu Yadav. It is the case of the informant that she was tortured by her husband and other inlaws. A son was born to her in November 2023. On 03.09.2025 at about 12.30 P.M she went to village Katghara in order to buy ration and asked her husband to take care of her son. After about one hour she came back to house and found that her son was dead.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6423 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026 2/2 petitioner has submitted that petitioner is 'gotni' of the informant. It is further submitted that the nature of allegation is general and omnibus. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. It is further contended that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19775 of 2026. Moreover, the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody since 04.09.2025 having no criminal antecedent.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned A.D.J.-IXth, Nawada in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.112 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Jagdish/- U T