Sugiya Devi @ Sunaina Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86948 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2025 Thana- TANKUPPA District- Gaya ====================================================== Sugiya Devi @ Sunaina Devi W/O Ravinder Manjhi R/O Village -Bardiha Tola, Dukhi Bigha, P.S.-Tankuppa, District -Gaya ji ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in paragraph-1 of the bail application.
2. Heard Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 20.07.2025 in connection with Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 19.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 140(1), 137(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 238, 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 3⁄4 of the Dyne Witch Act.
4. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that when she and her family members were sleeping in her house, in the meantime, petitioner along with other co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86948 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026 2/3 accused persons entered her house and began assaulting her family members and threw her father-in-law from roof and also took him away. It is further alleged that the accused persons took away household articles and snatched golden locket from the neck of the informant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case and the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. 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 her rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioner and police after investigation has submitted chargesheet. The petitioner is in custody since 20.07.2025.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioner has clean antecedent and there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act against her, let the petitioner, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86948 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026 3/3 satisfaction of the learned ACJM-IV, Gaya in connection with Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025, subject to the 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, his 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 criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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