Anjali Kumari @ Anjali Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13089 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2024 Thana- RAMPUR HARI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Anjali Kumari @ Anjali Devi Wife of Vikash Kumar Resident of VillageMajhauliya, P.S.- Rampur Hari, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 2.

Vikash Baitha @ Vikash Kumar Son of Mahendra Rajak Resident of Village- Majhauliya, P.S.- Rampur Hari, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 3.

Sunder Devi Wife of Pappu Baitha @ Pappu Rajak Resident of VillageHazratpur, P.S.- Rampur Hari, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 4.

Pappu Rajak @ Pappu Baitha Son of Bipchan Rajak Resident of VillageHazratpur, P.S.- Rampur Hari, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 5.

Sanoj Baitha @ Sanjog Baitha Son of Late Shankar Baitha @ Late Shamkar Baitha Resident of Village- Korlahia, P.S.- Mahindwara, Distt.- Sitamarhi 6.

Shyam Kumar Baitha @ Shyam Baitha Son of Late Jogendra Baitha @ Late Jogendra Bitha Resident of Village- Nunimal, P.S.- Rajepur, Distt.- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Murli Dhar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-05-2025 Petition for pre-arrest bail of petitioner no.2 is dismissed as withdrawn.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

3. Petitioners apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 80(i), 238, 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

4. As per the prosecution case, informant alleged that his sister was married to one Pawan Baitha. Thereafter, she was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13089 of 2025(2) dt.15-05-2025 2/3 tortured for dowry and on the fateful day, he came to know that she has been killed and the dead body has been taken to a nearby forest for cremation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that these petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioners are in-laws of the deceased and have separate mess and business. Thrust of allegation is against husband of deceased, who is already in custody. Coaccused, with similar allegation, has already been allowed prearrest bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order passed in Cr.Mis.No. 12007/2025. Petitioners claims clean antecedent.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, prayer for bail of petitioners no. 1,3,4,5 and 6 is allowed. In the event of arrest/surrender within eight weeks from today, let petitioners no. 1,3,4,5 and 6 mentioned above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 9, East Muzaffarpur in Rampur Hari Police Station Case No. 218 of 2024, subject to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13089 of 2025(2) dt.15-05-2025 3/3 the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T