Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45860/2026bail granted

Savita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-03Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 45135 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2026 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Rajat Khatri S/o Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Khatri Resident of village - Bagh Kalu Kha, Sardargali, P.S.- Khajekala, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 45860 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2026 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Savita Devi Wife of Late Mahesh Chaudhary Resident of Village- Banauliya, P.S.- Bihar, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 45135 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocte For the State :

Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 45860 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brajesh Sahay, Advocate :

Ms. Seema Shrivastava, Advocate :

Ms. Mandavi Kumari, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioners seek bail who are in custody since 09.03.2026 in connection with Laheri P.S. Case No. 85 of 2026,

2/4 F.I.R. dated 26.02.2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 305(a), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 331(4) of the BNS.

3. The FIR of the occurrence of theft is against unknown.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and they falsely been implicated in the present case. Infact the petitioner, namely, Rajat Khatri is a gold smith and he has no role at all in the present occurrence and his name transpired on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused person, namely, Raushan Kumar and as far as petitioner, namely, Savita Devi is concerned, she is a lady and her name transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person, namely, Aditya Kumar @ Manish Kumar @ Chikara. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Kapil Kumar has been granted the privilege of bail by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 32755 of 2026. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioners and the petitioners are in custody since 09.03.2026.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the

3/4 petitioners and submits that recovery have been made from the shop of the petitioner, namely, Rajat Khatri and the said Rajat Khatri carries two criminal antecedents in which he is on bail and another petitioner, namely, Savita Devi has clean antecedent.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners, above named, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda, Biharshariff in connection with Laheri P.S. Case No. 85 of 2026, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioners tamper 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 petitioners and in case at

4/4 any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds 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