Ruby Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16335 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-342 Year-2025 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

Ruby Devi, Wife of Shailesh Manjhi, Resident of Village - Jagdishpur, P.S. - Madhaoura, Dist. - Saran at Chapra.

2.

Soni Devi, Wife of Dhurendra Manjhi, Resident of Village - Jalalpur, P.S. - Jalalpur, Dist. - Saran at Chapra.

3.

Mani Devi, Wife of Dharmendra Manjhi, R/o Village - Tujarpur, P.S. - Khaira, Dist. - Saran at Chapra.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Madhaoura P.S. Case No. 342 of 2025 dated 23.05.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2), 238(b) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Sections 304(b), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation, the petitioners and other coaccused persons have committed dowry death of one Nilu

2/4 Kumari, 28 years, daughter of the informant. As per further allegation, the informant got information on 23.05.2025 that his daughter is dead and when he reached the matrimonial house of his daughter, he came to know that she has been cremated. She has strong belief that for dowry the accused persons including the petitioners have committed dowry death.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that as per allegation, this is not a dowry death because as per the FIR, marriage was solemnized in the month of May 2018 and the alleged offence has been committed on 23rd May, 2025 i.e. beyond seven years of marriage. He further submits that petitioner No. 1 is wife of brother of the husband and other two petitioners are married sisters-in-law of the deceased living at different villages. He also submits that even the petitioner No. 1 is separate in mess and business with the husband of the deceased.

5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioners have not moved this Court

3/4 earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.

6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the petition that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

7. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition is allowed, directing the petitioners above-named, to be enlarged on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned concerned court below, in connection with Madhaoura P.S. Case No. 342 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) B.N.S.S., 2023 and on the following conditions:

(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioners have any criminal antecedent,

4/4 learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners after hearing them and getting satisfied that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents despite their knowledge of the same.

(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.

(Jitendra Kumar, J) S.Ali/- U T