Gudiya Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13216 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2025 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
GUDIYA DEVI Wife of Anil Das R/o Vill.- Baidrabad, P.S.- Baidrabad, Dist.- Arwal 2.
Surbhi Devi Wife of Veerson R/o Vill.- Karaiya, P.S.- Paliganj, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Brij Bihari Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehended their arrest in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 289 of 2025, F.I.R dated 03.11.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, Randhir Kumar, along with his wife visited Ular Suryamandir on 02.11.2025. At about 10:02 A.M., an unknown woman allegedly cut and stole the gold chain worn by his wife and fled from the spot. It is further alleged that upon checking the CCTV footage of the temple, the informant observed the incident and identified that the lady thief escaped by boarding a white colour Scorpio
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13216 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026 2/3 vehicle at around 10:09 A.M. However, the registration number of the said vehicle could not be clearly seen in the footage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the name of the petitioners have transpired on the confession made by Mantu Ram and the Scorpio, as per the allegation is said to have been used for committing the offence which also does not belong to these petitioners and the petitioners have clean antecedent and nothing incriminating is said to have been recovered from the constructive possession of these petitioners.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the petitioners have clean antecedent and nothing incriminating is said to have been recovered from the constructive possession of these petitioners. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13216 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026 3/3 satisfaction of the learned Ms. Archana, JMFC, Danapur in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 289 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other 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/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no 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 their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) abhishekkr/- U T