Lila Devi @ Leela Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66886 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2025 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== 1.
Lila Devi @ Leela Devi W/o- Satyanarayan Yadav @ Satyanarayan Jadav Village- Chakchanarpat PS-Bakhari Dist- Begusarai 2.
Renu Devi W/o- Arvind Yadav Village- Chakchanarpat PS-Bakhari DistBegusarai 3.
Satyanarayan Yadav @ Satyanarayan Jadav S/o- Lakhan Yadav VillageChakchanarpat PS-Bakhari Dist- Begusarai 4.
Manoj Kumar Yadav @ Manoj Yadav S/o- Satyanarayan Yadav @ Satyanarayan Jadav Village- Chakchanarpat PS-Bakhari Dist- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehends their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 132, 221, 224, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per the FIR, on 11.07.2025 at about 23:10 hours, police officials proceeded to apprehend accused Arbind Yadav of Gadhpura P.S. Case No.17 of 2025 and reached at Bakhari Police Station and informed the officials, and at 00:20
2/4 hours raided the house of Arbind Yadav. During the raid, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons allegedly abused and obstructed the police party, and petitioner no.1further threatened to lodge a case against them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the police illegally entered the house of the petitioners during the night and brutally assaulted them in the name of Arbind Yadav, who was not even present in their house. The police suspected that Arbind Yadav had fled from there, and it is in this background that the police are said to have assaulted the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners attempted to lodge an FIR against the police, but it was not accepted by the local police, therefore, they had to take recourse by filing Complaint Case No. 983 of 2025 against the police, who are said to have entered their house illegally and assaulted them.
It is next submitted that out of the four petitioners, two are ladies who were also assaulted by the police. It is further submitted that the police entered the house of the petitioners without any warrant, which amounts to misuse of power by the police administration. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.
3/4
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Taking into account that two petitioners are ladies and there is case and counter case between the parties, let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai/Successor Court in connection with Bakhari P.S. Case No.257 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the 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,
4/4 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) shikha/- U T