Prahlad Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12444 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-535 Year-2024 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.
Prahlad Singh S/O Late Jago Singh R/O Village- Vidyapeeth Chowk, Lakhisarai, P.S- Lakhisarai, Distt.- Lakhisarai. 2.
Munni Devi W/O Prahlad Singh R/O Village- Vidyapeeth Chowk, Lakhisarai, P.S- Lakhisarai, Distt.- Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sunil Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Naresh Ray, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 535 of 2024 dated 12.09.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 123, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per prosecution case, the marriage of the daughter of the O.P. No.2 was solemnized with Ranjit Kumar on 18.04.2024. However, soon after the marriage, she was subjected to demand of dowry and on account of non-fulfillment of the same, she was tortured in various ways and also administered poison. The accused persons are bent upon demanding one Katha of land and cash of Rs. 10 lakhs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both
2/4 the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the Informant's daughter and were residing separately and had no concern with her. It is next submitted that during course of treatment, when the husband of the Informant's daughter was taken to the hospital, it has not been found that she was tortured and a false and fabricated allegation has been levelled against the petitioners. On the alleged date of occurrence, in order to terrorize the husband, the victim took poison and, thereafter, she was taken to Mamta Emergency Hospital, Lakhisarai and during course of treatment and after due examination, no case of poisoning was found by the doctor and the doctor has also opined that no external injury was also found on the person of the victim. It is further submitted that the co-accused persons have already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.08.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 30408 of 2025.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the doctor has denied poison having been administered to the daughter of the Informant and the allegations leveled against the petitioners are general and
3/4 omnibus and they have been residing separately as also the fact that the co-accused have already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in connection with Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 535 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. as well as the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document / personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
4/4 cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) rishi/- U T