Anjali Kumari @ Anjali Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17010 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-749 Year-2025 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

Anjali Kumari @ Anjali Singh wife of Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Singh Resident of village- Chakfateh P.S. - Mahua Dist.- Vaishali 2.

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Singh Son of Nand Lal Singh Resident of village- Chakfateh P.S. - Mahua Dist.- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kalyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 123, 80, 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that her daughter was married to Ranjit about an year and a half back and out of the wedlock, a child was born, but the accused persons used to torture the victim for non-fulfillment of dowry demand of Rs.2 lacs, it is further alleged that sister-inlaw of the victim (petitioner no.1) and her husband (petitioner

2/4 no.2) used to come to the house of the victim and they also tortured her for non-fulfillment of dowry demand and the victim used to disclosed about the torture being meted out to her to the informant, further alleges that informant was informed on 24.09.2025 at 12 Noon that her daughter has been administered poison and admitted in a hospital at Hajipur, accordingly, she along with her family members reached the Nursing Home, where the victim was admitted but the victim was referred to Patna, it is next alleged that victim died on the way, thus the police was informed and the police after postmortem handed over the dead body of the victim.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It is also submitted that no doubt the victim died within an year and a half of marriage. as such. presumption in law is against the husband of the deceased and his family members but then as far as petitioners are concerned, against them the allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that petitioner no.1 is own sister of the husband of the deceased and

3/4 petitioner no.2 is her husband and they reside separately. It is next submitted that petitioners have been implicated in the instant case only with a view to coerce the entire family members into submission. It is next submitted that whenever any dispute arises in between the husband and the wife and the occurrence of the nature as alleged takes place, the entire family members are implicated in a mechanical manner. It is also submitted that had the petitioners been involved in the occurrence then efforts would have been made to dispose of the dead body with a view to conceal evidence, but then from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the victim was taken to hospital at Hajipur, from where, she was referred to Patna but on the way she died.

It is thus submitted that efforts were made by the family members to save the victim. It is also submitted that it is the duty of the husband to ensure the well-being of his wife but if any untoward occurrence takes place the entire family members in a mechanical manner gets implicated. It is also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

4/4 anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.749/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

7. However, it is made clear that in the event if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioners despite giving assurance to this court are not co-operating in the investigation in that event the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T