Patna High CourtCR. MISC./82707/2025rejected

Roma Kumari @ Payal v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-25Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82707 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2025 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== Roma Kumari @ Payal Wife of Pramod Gupta, D/o Dinesh Chandra Lal R/o Village - Raniganj, Ward No.12, P.S - Raniganj, District - Araria, A/P Resident of Village - Kathghar, Gaurichak Lane, P.S - Babarganj, District - Bahgalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr.Advocate : Mr.Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Raj Shekhar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-03-2026 Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Raj Shekhar, learned counsel for the informant and Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 20.06.2025 in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 357 of 2025 corresponding to G.R.No.1511/2025, F.I.R. dated 15.06.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1),238 of BNS.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that she alongwith her male friend have brutally murdered her son, as he was objecting her illicit relation with her male friend Nirmal Kumar.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82707 of 2025(5) dt.25-03-2026 2/2 submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused person. Thereafter, the petitioner has confessed her guilt in the present occurrence. Even the daughter of the petitioner has supported the case of the prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, on the basis of the material available on the record and the case diary, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of allegation against the petitioner which has come during investigation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 357 of 2025 corresponding to G.R.No.1511/2025 pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-I, Barh, Patna.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T