Partly allowed

Meera Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Jun 2026CR. MISC./19169/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail applications in a murder case under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) BNS. The court granted pre-arrest bail to the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, noting the postmortem was inconclusive, but rejected the prayer for the widow of the deceased and her alleged lover, citing case diary material including CDR analysis showing frequent calls between them.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to petitioner nos.1 and 2 of Cr. Misc. No.19169 of 2026; anticipatory bail rejected for petitioner no.3 and petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.26614 of 2026.

Meera Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19169 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2025 Thana- NARHATT District- Nawada

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Meera Devi Wife of Ashok Prasad @ Karu Mahto Resident of VillageKujapi, Ps- Chandauti, Dist- Gaya

¶5

Vishvanath Kumar @ Vishvanath Mahto son of Ashok Prasad @ karu Mahto Resident of Village- Kujapi, Ps- Chandauti, Dist- Gaya

¶6

Priti Devi @ Priti Kumari Wife of Late Munna Kumar @ Bhutali Resident of village- Olipur, Ps- Narahat, Dist- Nawadah

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

======================================================

¶12

with

¶13

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 26614 of 2026

¶14

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2025 Thana- NARHATT District- Nawada

¶15

====================================================== Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Prasad Son of Amirak Mahto Resident of VillageOlipur, P.S.- Narhat, District- Nawadah

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶20

====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 19169 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 26614 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶21

4 17-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶22

A.P.P. for the State in both the cases.

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19169 of 2026(4) dt.17-06-2026 2/4

¶24

The petitioners of both the cases (Cr. Misc. No.19169 of 2026 and Cr. Misc. No.26614 of 2026) apprehends arrest in connection with Narhat P.S. Case No. 184 of 2025 lodged on 12.06.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶25

As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against four named accused persons (the petitioners of both the cases). It has been alleged by the informant that all the accused persons have assaulted his son and killed him and thereafter, fled away.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Counsel submits that the death of the informant’s son has been caused at the informant’s house itself. He submits that the petitioner nos.1, 2 & 3 of Cr. Misc. No. 19169 of 2026 are the mother in law, brother in law and wife of the deceased, respectively. He submits that the petitioner no.3 is basically the victim in this case and she has unnecessarily been made accused in this case. He further submits that the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.26614 of 2026 is the sadhoo of the deceased. He submits that the death of the informant’s son has taken place due to illness and the petitioners were made accused by the family of the deceased unnecessarily. Counsel submits that earlier, case

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19169 of 2026(4) dt.17-06-2026 3/4

¶28

diary along with postmortem report of the deceased have been called for. From perusal of the postmortem report, it transpires that the doctor had conducted the external examination of the body of the deceased, by which it appears that the external injury cannot be visible due to swelling and marbling of the body and as per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death cannot be ascertained so viscera were preserved and sent for F.S.L examination and the final opinion was reserved till receiving the F.S.L report. He further submits that the petitioners of both the cases have clean antecedent.

¶29

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners of both the cases and submits that as per the FIR, there is specific allegation that all the accused persons have killed the informant’s son. He further submits that earlier, case diary along with postmortem report of the deceased have been called for in this case. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the wife of the deceased (petitioner no.3 of Cr. Misc. No. 19169 of 2026) has intimate relation with her jija i.e. petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.26614 of 2026 which has been figured by the different witnesses in the case diary, and in para 41 of the case diary which is the analysis of C.D.R on the date and just thereafter, the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.26614 of 2026

¶30

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19169 of 2026(4) dt.17-06-2026 4/4

¶31

and the petitioner no.3 of Cr. Misc. No. 19169 of 2026 have talked 227 times.

¶32

As such, in the present facts and circumstances of this case, let the petitioner nos.1 & 2 of Cr. Misc. No. 19169 of 2026 be released on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Nawada, in connection with Narhat P.S. Case No. 184 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down U/s 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.

¶33

So far as the petitioner no.3 of Cr. Misc. No. 19169 of 2026 and the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.26614 of 2026 are concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to them. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

¶34

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶35

Divyansh/-

¶36

U T

Meera Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uday Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Janaki Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Satish Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Sah @ Mukesh Kumar Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj singh Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Mandal Vs The State of Bihar