Umesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15560 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2025 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Umesh Singh Son of Late Lalan Singh Resident of village- Dariyapur, psSangrampur, Dist- East Champaran 2.
Pramila Devi wife of Umesh Singh Resident of village- Dariyapur, psSangrampur, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Prateek Tandon, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No.434 of 2025, F.I.R dated 08.11.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, based on a complaint by Vikash Singh. He alleged that his cousin, Rani Devi, was married to Vivek Kumar Singh a year earlier with dowry, but was continuously harassed for additional demands (chain, motorcycle, and ring). He further alleged that the named
2/4 accused persons killed her and disposed of her body in a field about 200 meters from the house. He received this information on 07.11.2025 at around 5:00 PM.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that the allegations are of general and omnibus in nature and the husband of the deceased is already under judicial custody. Case diary was called for vide order dated 12.03.2026 but nothing specific against these petitioners have been referred. It has next been submitted that the investigation in respect of the husband is already completed and has been charge-sheeted and he undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and in case, he is put under trial, he will cooperate with the same. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the informant, who has appeared suo motu in this case opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the husband of the petitioner is already under judicial custody and there is no specific allegation against these
3/4 petitioners and the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari, in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No.434 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other 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 his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
4/4 promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for 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) sharun/- U T