Vinod Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7324 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2023 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
Vinod Ray S/O Dular Ray R/O Vill.- Bahrampur, P.S- Raghopur (Rustampur O.P) , Dist- vaishali 2.
Maniya Devi W/O Vinod Ray R/O Vill.- Bahrampur, P.S- Raghopur ( Rustampur O.P) , Dist- vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Rina Devi R/O Vill.- Sukumarpur, P.S- Rustampur , Dist- Vaishali ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :
Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 84 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 364, 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 of the DP Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant Rina Devi who is mother of the victim, Abhilasha Kumari, lodged an F.I.R., stating therein that the marriage of Abhilasha Kumari was solemnized with the co-accused Guddu Rai. The co-accused Guddu Rai demanded Rs. 2,00,000/ cash and a golden chain and
2/4 for non-fulfillment of the demand the accused persons tortured her daughter. The victim informed the informant that if the demand of her matrimonial inmates is not fulfilled, they might kill her. The informant received telephonic message from Guddu Rai who said that her daughter had fled away from her matrimonial home. A suspicion was raised by the informant that all the accused persons, after committing murder of the deceased, have concealed the dead body.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim and they have no concern with day-to-day affairs of the couple. He has also submitted that the allegation of demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a golden chain is against Guddu Rai and not against the petitioners. They have falsely been implicated merely because they are the parents of the main accused, Guddu Rai.
5. According to the prosecution, during the investigation, it came to light that Abhilasha Kumari after handing over her mobile phone to the informant went out from her house. In order to verify this fact, the investigating officer was directed to be present in the Court in person. The I.O. has submitted that the informant appeared in the police station and
3/4 she stated that her daughter Abhilasha Kumari sent her mobile set to the informant through son of the informant and thereafter she became traceless. A videographic statement of the informant was done. The said clip was submitted in a pen drive by the investigating officer which was played in the Court in which the informant makes allegation against the co-accused Guddu Rai of demanding dowry and torture but she did not make any kind of allegations against the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the investigating authorities are taking no efforts to apprehend main accused Guddu Rai to which the learned APP for State, Shre Shailenra Kumar, has submitted that the process under Sections 82 and 83 has been issued against main accused Guddu Rai.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners, in the event of his/her arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st, Vaishali (Hajipur)/concerned Court below, in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 84 of 2023, subject to
4/4 the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharitya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.).
8. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
9. The personal appearance of the I.O. is dispensed with.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Jyoti/- U T