Punam Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11248 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-234 Year-2024 Thana- PASRAHA District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.
Punam Devi Wife of Mahendra Singh Village - Satish Nagar, P.S.- Pasraha, Dist- Khagaria 2.
Ramjee Singh son of Late Timhi Singh Village- Mahaddipur, P.S.- Pasraha, Dist- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Budhilal Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Harendra Prasad, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-06-2025 Heard Mr. Budhilal Yadav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Harendra Prasad, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2), 3(5), 61(2) of B.N.S. and 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the informant was married on 15.06.2024 with one co-accused Shiv Singh. It is alleged that all the accused persons used to torture the daughter of the informant for demand of dowry and ultimately her daughter was killed by the accused persons.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
2/4 the Petitioner No.1, happens to be the mother-in-law while the Petitioner No. 2 is the maternal grandfather of the husband of the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and no such incident had occurred and in fact her daughterin-law had committed suicide and was found hanging which is supported by the postmortem report. The learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that the Petitioner No.1 being the mother-in-law had no concern with the said incident and Petitioner No. 2 is the maternal grandfather of the husband of the deceased and is not even the resident of the said village and he is a very old person of 79 years of age. The learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submit that the petitioners carry clean antecedent and they are in custody since 23.09.2024.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that that the petitioners are co-accused in the killing of the daughter of the informant.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the parties and taking into account the fact that the Petitioner No.1 happens to be the mother-in-law and there is no specific allegation against her while petitioner no. 2 happens to be the
3/4 maternal grandfather of the husband of the deceased and a resident of a different village, I am inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
8. Let the petitioners, above named, be released 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 the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection Pasraha P.S. Case No. 234 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be his/her close relative.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
4/4 criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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. (Sourendra Pandey, J) Siwani/- U T