Nirma Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7378 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-190 Year-2023 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== NIRMA DEVI W/o Uday Yadav Resident of Village- Karwar, Police StationKargahar, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Kargahar P.S. Case No. 190 of 2023 dated 31.05.2023 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 informant has alleged that she had gone to her verandah and found her son talking to one Akhilesh Singh. Thereafter, both of them were found to be talking till late night. However, at around 3:00 A.M., when she went to wake her son, she neither found her son nor the said Akhilesh Singh there. On the next morning i.e. 7:00 A.M., she learned from the villagers that her son had
2/4 been killed and hanged from a tree. The informant has further alleged that it was the said Akhilesh Singh who had murdered her son and hanged his body from a tree.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case as an afterthought during the course of investigation. It has further been submitted that initially the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., however, during the course of investigation, the wife of the deceased on the next day has concocted a story that the petitioner, who was having an illicit affair with the deceased, had threatened her that the petitioner would kill the said son of the informant. It has further been submitted that from the C.D.R., it would be evident that there were regular talks between the deceased and the petitioner and only on account of such talk, the petitioner, on suspicion, has been made an accused in the present case.
It has further been submitted that from perusal of the Post-mortem report, it would be evident that the cause of death has been referred to be asphyxia due to hanging. It has, therefore, been submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion and no evidence whatsoever has come to connect the petitioner with the alleged incident.
3/4 has clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, is 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-bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) 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 Kargahar P.S. Case No. 190 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 petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner 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
4/4 violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned. (iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the trial court shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond 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