Sarita Devi @ Sabita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 19525 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2023 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== Sarita Devi @ Sabita Kumari W/o Ramkumar Sahani @ Rampukar Sahni Resident of Village- Vaishali Garh, P.O., P.S. and District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 31-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 21.09.2025 in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No. 43 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant married his daughter Kajal Kumari with Ramchandra Sahni on 30.06.2022 as per Hindu Customs but at the time of girl's departure, his son-in-law demanded the motorcycle again and again. After the villagers convinced him, then the wedding procession went to his home. But a few days after, when her daughter went to her in- laws' house, she started being harassed for a motorcycle and other items. It is next alleged that husband
2/4 Ramchandra Sahni started threatening over mobile, alongwith the named (1) Ramkumar Sahni (2) Rekha Devi (3) Sarita Devi
(4) Nisha Kumari, and altogether started beating and harassing his daughter in various ways, saying that you should bring a motorcycle and other things from your maternal home or else we will kill you. It is further alleged that when the daughter informed about this, the informant repeatedly explained to the son-in-law and other family members. But ultimately his daughter was murdered by all these named persons on 06.02.2023 and the body was disposed of, his daughter was also five months pregnant. When informant informed about his daughter's murder, by the time he reached his matrimonial home in Vaishali, he found his daughter had been murdered and the body had been disappeared.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act against the petitioner rather the allegations are general and omnibus in nature against all the accused persons including the
3/4 petitioner. It is next submitted that husband of the deceased has died on 02.01.2024 and petitioner is sister-in-law of the deceased and she has no concern at all the with the present occurrence in question and the co-accused person, namely, Rekha Devi, who is happened to be mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail vide order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 46044 of 2025. It is next submitted that the police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet and the petitioner is in custody since 21.09.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No. 43 of 2023, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
4/4 reason, her bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T