Pramila Devi Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Renuka Ratnakar (App 125) For the informant : Mr. Sarvottam Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 10-09-2025

¶14

Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel

¶15

appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Ms. Renuka Ratnakar learned APP for the State and Mr. Sarvottam Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

¶16

The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(1), 351(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶17

As per the allegation made in the FIR, all the accused persons including the petitioners entered into the house

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55814 of 2025(2) dt.10-09-2025 2/4

¶19

of the informant and fired in which daughter of the informant sustained firearm injury.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners, who are female members, are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioners and informant are of same village and due to enmity with the petitioners, the informant has lodged the present FIR against the petitioners. The informant and his relatives are in habit to lodge false complaint against the petitioners and in past also, they had filed two complaints against these petitioners along with other co-accused before the learned Magistrate. In the present case also, based on the false accusation, the FIR has been lodged against the petitioners. Petitioners side have also lodged counter case. He further submitted that the injury sustained on the person of daughter of the informant has been opined by the doctor to be simple in nature.

¶21

Mr. Sarvottam Kumar, learned counsel, has tendered his appearance on behalf of the informant and has submitted that it is not a case that on previous occasion the complaints were lodged against the petitioners but they are bent upon to take life of the informant and other family members, the accusation made against the petitioners are sustainable and as

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55814 of 2025(2) dt.10-09-2025 3/4

¶23

such, the petitioner don’t deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶24

Learned APP for the State also vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶25

Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the nature of alleged allegation made in the FIR, I find that all the petitioners are female members of the same family and they are also well acquainted with the informant side. There is case and counter case. On previous occasions also, the informant has implicated these petitioners by lodging complaint before the learned Magistrate. In want of any overt act specifically alleged in the FIR against these petitioners and also the fact that the injury sustained by the daughter of the informant is simple in nature, I am of the opinion that petitioners have, prima facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶26

The petitioners, 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 furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Judge-IV-cum-

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55814 of 2025(2) dt.10-09-2025 4/4

¶28

ACJM-IV, Begusarai/ concerned court in connection with Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶29

The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners are involved in some other cases, as what has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail application, this order will automatically lose its force.

¶30

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶31

Sanjay/-

¶32

U T

Pramila Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinanath Tiwary Vs The State of Bihar

Amar Agrawal @ Amar Kumar Agarwal Vs The State of Bihar

Soma Rani Singha @ Soma Rani Mondal @ Soma Rani Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Shri Bhagwan Chaudhary @ Sribhagwan Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Rajiv Ranjan Kumar @ Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Raja Babu Vs The State of Bihar