Punita Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9950 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-409 Year-2025 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== 1.
Punita Devi Wife of Late Yashwant Yadav @ Jashi Yadav R/o - Village - Khari South, Ward No - 15, P.S - Murliganj, District-Madhepura. 2.
Rajesh Yadav Son of Kulo Yadav R/o - Village - Belodih, Ward No. - 03, P.S - Murliganj, District - Madhepura.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 14770 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-409 Year-2025 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Amit Kumar @ Gurudeo Kumar @ Gurudev Kumar Son of Sajan Yadav @ Sajjan Yadav @ Sajjan Kumar R/o Village - Khari South Ward No. 15, P.S. - Murliganj, District. - Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 9950 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, A.P.P.
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 14770 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioners seek bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 409 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS.
2/5
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant, Urmila Devi, alleging inter alia that a case between the informant's son, Jaswant Kumar @ Jasi Yadav and her daughter-in-law, Punita Devi, has been pending before the court at Madhepura for about three years. During this period, Punita Devi developed illicit relations with co-accused Amit Kumar @ Gurudev Kumar and Rajesh Yadav, which was opposed by the informant's son. During this time, the informant's daughter-inlaw had married her minor daughter to the accused Amit Kumar about a year ago, which was also opposed by the informant's son. Meanwhile, Punita Devi had been pressuring the informant's son to register one bigha of land in favour of Amit Kumar @ Gurudev Kumar, which he refused. Upon such refusal, the accused persons extended repeated threats to kill him. On 17.08.
2025 at about 9:00 PM, Punita Devi, Amit Kumar @ Gurudev Kumar, Shubham Kumar, Anshu Kumar, Rajesh Yadav called the informant's son out of his house on the pretext of loading fertilizer and took him to village Bellodih near a canal, where they brutally murdered him by slitting his throat with a sharp-edged weapon and threw the dead body in a nearby paddy field. On 18.08.
3/5 and videos of her son went viral on mobile phones, the informant reached the place of occurrence along with villagers and found her son lying dead in a paddy field with his throat slit by a sharp-edged weapon. The informant further alleges that all the named accused persons, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, murdered her son.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. From perusal of the F.I.R it appears that petitioners have been made accused in these cases on the basis of suspicion and except suspicion, no other cogent material has come during the course of investigation to suggest the involvement of petitioners in the present cases. It is further submitted that informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence in question and even no one has seen the occurrence. It is next submitted that the police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet and the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 9950 of 2026 are in custody since 19.08.2025 and the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 14770 of 2026 is in custody since 10.09.2025.
4/5
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and no other cogent material has come during the course of investigation to suggest the involvement of petitioners in the present cases, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Madhepura in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 409 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
5/5 criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of 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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T