← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11507/2026bail granted

Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-01Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11507 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2012 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Sunita Devi Wife of Mukesh Manjhi Resident of Village- Bahuara, PsNaubatpur, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 168 of 2012 for the offence punishable under sections 302/201/34 of IPC lodged on 08.07.2012 by the informant, Jawahir Manjhi.

3. As per the prosecution case, the dead body of the informant's son was recovered from the bank of river Punpun. It has further been alleged that the informant's son had illicit relationship with the petitioner, due to which, his murder has been committed by the petitioner and two other co-accused persons. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the First Information Report itself, it is evident that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of

2/4 suspicion while nothing specific has surfaced against this petitioner which shows the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence as alleged. It has next been submitted that insofar as the allegation of illicit relationship between the deceased and petitioner is concerned, neither the wife of the deceased nor the husband of the petitioner has ever raised any complaint that such relations are being maintained between the petitioner and the deceased. Petitioner has got clean antecedent. For similar allegation, one another co-accused, who is father-inlaw of the petitioner, has been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.05.2013 in Cr. Misc. No. 7488 of 2013.

5. Learned APP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that the whole scenario clearly points out the finger towards the accomplicement of this petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions of the parties and the fact that this petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion which is evident from the FIR itself, there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and insofar as the allegation of illicit relationship is concerned, neither the wife of the deceased nor the husband of the petitioner has ever raised any

3/4 complaint that such relations are being maintained between them and the fact that similarly situated co-accused, as stated above, has been granted regular bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court way back in the year, 2013 itself, this Court is inclined to extend her the privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Danapur, District-Patna in connection with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no

4/4 way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his/their bail bonds.

(Ajit Kumar, J) perwez U T