Dhanji Kumar @ Anand @ Anand Sah @ Anand Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16448 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2024 Thana- DAWATH District- Rohtas ====================================================== Dhanji Kumar @ Anand @ Anand Sah @ Anand Kumar Son of Late Utim Sah @ Uttam Sah Resident of Village- Maliabagh Semri, Mohalla-Anand Nagar, P.S.- Dawath, District- Rohtas, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 15915 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2024 Thana- DAWATH District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sandhya Devi W/O Anand Shah @ Dhanji Kumar R/O Village-Maliabagh Semri, Mohalla- Anand Nagar, P.S.- Dawath, District- Rohtas, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 16448 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar 1 (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 15915 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-05-2025 Both the applications arise out of the same case i.e. Dawath P.S. Case No. 157 of 2024 and accordingly, the same are being heard and disposed of together by this common order.

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

2/4

3. The petitioner, Dhanji Kumar @ Anand @ Anand Sah @ Anand Kumar (in Cr. Misc. No. 16448 of 2025) seeks regular bail whereas the petitioner, Sandhya Devi (in Cr. Misc. No. 15915 of 2025) apprehends her arrest, in a case initially registered for the offence punishable under Sections-498(A), 341, 323, 365, 366, 34 and later on, the same was amended to Sections-304(B), 302, 120(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Allegedly, sister of the informant was done to death by her in-laws family due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner, Dhanji Kumar @ Anand @ Anand Sah @ Anand Kumar (in Cr. Misc. No. 16448 of 2025) is father-in-law whereas the petitioner, Sandhya Devi (in Cr. Misc. No. 15915 of 2025) is mother-in-law of the deceased, who died only within ten days of marriage in her matrimonial house. It has further been submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The dead body of the deceased has not been recovered and the petitioners have falsely been implicated merely because they are parents of husband of the deceased. It has lastly been submitted that they have no concern with day-to-day affairs of the couple.

6. On the otherhand, learned counsel for the informant

3/4 as well as Mr. J. N. Thakur, learned Addl. P.P., have submitted that in paragraph-79 of the case diary, the petitioner Dhanji Kumar @ Anand @ Anand Sah @ Anand Kumar (in Cr. Misc. No. 16448 of 2025) has admitted that after concealing the dead body in a cartoon, it was disposed of in Varanasi. The mobile location of the petitioner Dhanji Kumar was found in Varanasi. As per submission of learned counsel for the informant, the deceased died in her matrimonial house in the circumstances which cannot be said to be normal one within only ten days of her marriage. The petitioner, Dhanji Kumar @ Anand @ Anand Sah @ Anand Kumar (in Cr. Misc. No. 16448 of 2025) who is father-in-law of the deceased, has admitted that he concealed the dead body in a cartoon and dispose it of in Varanasi.

The mobile location of the petitioner Dhanji Kumar @ Anand @ Anand Sah @ Anand Kumar was found in Varanasi. So far the petitioner, Sandhya Devi (in Cr. Misc. No. 15915 of 2025) who makes a prayer for anticipatory bail is concerned, she and her son (husband of the deceased) as per submission of Dhanji Kumar @ Anand @ Anand Sah @ Anand Kumar used to quarrel with the deceased.

7. In my view, the petitioner Dhanji Kumar @ Anand @ Anand Sah @ Anand Kumar does not deserve privilege of

4/4 bail and likewise, the petitioner, Sandhya Devi does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly, both the applications stand dismissed. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T