Malo Devi @ Mano Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38481 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2026 Thana- KARJAIN District- Supaul ====================================================== Malo Devi @ Mano Devi S/o Visheshwar Sharma @ Bisheshwar Sharma @ Bishnu Sharma Resident of village - Dumari, Ward No. 02, Police Station - Karjain, District - Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arun, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application for anticipatory bail arises out of Karjain P.S. Case No. 29 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. As per the allegation, from the house of the coaccused Vishnu Sharma, altogether 1.8088 Kg. of Ganja was recovered while this petitioner being wife of co-accused Vishnu Sharma, managed to flee away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a lady and she has herself been made victim of circumstances and the petitioner, being wife of co-accused Vishnu Sharma, was not aware of the fact that her husband has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38481 of 2026(3) dt.23-07-2026 2/2 kept Ganja in the house. It has further been submitted that the house is jointly possessed by many persons and petitioner may not be held liable. It has further been submitted that the police has developed a story of petitioner having fled away from the place of occurrence in order to make the petitioner an accused. It has further been submitted that the procedures prescribed under Section 103 B.N.S.S. has not been followed with. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Heard the parties and perused the record. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(Praveen Kumar, J) Abdus/- U T