Seema Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41733 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2026 Thana- RAJPUR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Seema Devi W/O Baban Singh @ Baban Yadav R/O Village- Baligaon, P.S.- Rajpur, Distt.- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2026 Heard Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Rajpur P.S. case no.44 of 2026, F.I.R dated 10.3.2026 registered for the offences under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 303(2), 109, 352, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that on 10.03.2026 co-accused Baban Singh blazed fire in Gaushala (cow-shade) of informant for which she informed police thereafter Baban Singh and his associates assaulted the entire family with danda, rod and Rama and further states that the Baban singh and his son pressed to withdraw earlier case.
2/4 That the Prosecutrix further alleged that her younger daughterin-law Gita Devi was assaulted and her gold chain and Jitiya was snatched and elder brother of Baban Singh, namely, Uttam Kumar Singh assaulted son of the informant due to which he sustained head injury and 14 stitches were given, head of younger son was torn due to assault of danda. Riya and Muskan who were neighbour of informant were also assaulted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is case and counter case between the parties and although the petitioner is named in the FIR but from bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act against this petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioner and injury inflicted upon the injured persons is simple in nature except one injury.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries one criminal antecedent other than the present one.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
3/4 there is no specific allegation of assault or overt against the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of 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 satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas in connection with Rajpur Excise P.S. Case No. 44 of 2026, 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.
Petitioner 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 her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner 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 petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her
4/4 criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T