Pano Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91275 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2025 Thana- MUFFASIL PURNIA District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.
Pano Devi(F), age about 40 years, Wife of Prakash Rishi 2.
Guddi Devi(F), age about 24 years, Wife of Manoj Rishi 3.
Jyoti Devi(F), age about 20 years, wife of Anish Rishi 4.
Manish Rishi(M), age about 22 years, Son of Prakash Rishi 5.
Sumit Rishi(M), age about 18 years, Son of Prakash Rishi 6.
Vikash Rishi(M), age about 22 years son of Vijay Rishi All Resident of village - Belouri, Sri Ram Tola, Ward no. 42, P.S - Mufasil, P.O - Purnea, District - Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kr. Jha, Advocate Mr. Saurav Anand, Advocate For the Informant :
Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, Advocate Mrs. Suman Kumari, Advocate For the State :
Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-03-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kr. Jha along with Mr. Saurav Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Purnea Muffasil P.S. Case No. 250 of 2025, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 352, and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
2/4
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, all the accused persons named therein including the petitioners had entered into the house of the informant and had started abusing them and assaulted the informant and her family members, due to which, husband and son of the informant sustained grievous injury.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. The parties are covillagers and the case arises out of a pre-existing land dispute regarding a common pathway. The FIR contains only omnibus and vague allegations without attributing any specific overt act to the petitioners. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place, and the allegations are false and concocted. There was a minor verbal altercation during Chhath Puja over obstruction of the pathway. He further submitted that no act of assault or criminal conduct, as alleged, was ever committed by the petitioners. The husband of the informant was suffering from a chronic illness and did not die due to any alleged assault. The post-mortem report also confirms death due to cardiorespiratory arrest caused by chronic liver disease. No injury corresponding to the alleged occurrence has been found on the
3/4 body of the deceased. The FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners and gain advantage in the civil dispute. Petitioners have clean antecedent. On these grounds, petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the FIR and the case diary, it appears that the specific allegation of assault is against one Manoranjan Jha, Manjeet Rishi, who are not before this Court and Vikash Rishi, who is petitioner no. 6. I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner no. 6 (Vikash Rishi) on prearrest bail.
7. Investigating Officer is directed to take the petitioner no. 6 (Vikash Rishi) into custody forthwith.
8. So far as petitioners no. 1 to 5 are concerned, I find that general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against them and considering that there is every likelihood of these petitioner to be acquitted in course of trial, the petitioners no. 1 to 5, above named, are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on
4/4 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 District Court where the case is pending, in connection with Purnea Muffasil P.S. Case No. 250 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
9. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners no. 1 to 5 as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is pending against the petitioners no. 1 to 5 as what has been stated in paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
10. Accordingly, the present bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T