Punam Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17403 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-580 Year-2025 Thana- HISUWA District- Nawada ====================================================== Punam Devi W/O Santosh Kewat R/O Village- Purandarpur, P.S- Tharthari, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 62 of the BNS, 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and is a woman and the informant alleges that two unknown women accused snatched chain of her daughter while they were sitting in an Auto, on alarm one woman accused was apprehended who disclosed her name as Sarita and disclosed the name of the accused who fled as petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17403 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026 2/2 recovered from her conscious possession. It is further submitted that confessional statement of an accused in police custody does not have any evidentiary value.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case. It is next submitted that no doubt name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value, but then allegation is of chain snatching which of late in the State of Bihar is on the rise, it is thus submitted that the case requires to be investigated and interrogation of the petitioner is required.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T