Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The petitioner-informant and widow of the deceased filed an application under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to opposite party no.2 by the District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Naugachia (In-Charge), by order dated 21.02.2026 in Sessions Trial No.611 of 2024. The case arose out of Ismailpur P.S. Case No.06 of 2024 registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 307, 302, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, wherein the opposite party no.2 was alleged to have fatally shot the petitioner's husband at a weekly market on 24.01.2024.
The principal grounds for cancellation urged by the petitioner were that the impugned bail order was passed in the teeth of a prior order of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Patna High Court dated 23.08.2024 rejecting the opposite party no.2's bail prayer in Criminal Miscellaneous No.44316 of 2024, without recording any substantial change in circumstances, and on the erroneous premise that the opposite party no.2 had no criminal history. Three eyewitnesses, including the widow, the son and the brother of the deceased, had all fully supported the prosecution case before the trial court, and one witness had deposed on oath that the accused persons were threatening to kill him if he testified against them.
The Court examined whether the Trial Court was legally competent to grant bail after a superior court had rejected the same prayer, and whether the impugned order disclosed application of mind to the relevant factors including the direct and specific allegation of firing the fatal shot corroborated by medical evidence, the witness intimidation, and the absence of any substantial change in circumstances warranting a departure from the High Court's earlier order.
Catchwords:
bail cancellation · Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 · Section 483(3) BNSS · murder · firearm injury · co-ordinate bench order · change in circumstances · witness intimidation · Indian Penal Code · Arms Act · Sessions Court jurisdiction · eyewitness testimony · post-mortem evidence
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
Full Judgment Text
[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Rituraj Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 17 September, 2026
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22917 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2024 Thana- ISMAILPUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Rituraj Devi, wife of late Manoj Mandal, resident of Village - Ismailpur, P.S -
Ismailpur, District - Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Tunna Yadav @ Tuntun Yadav, son of Upendra Yadav, resident of villa
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools.
For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.