Chandani Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18720 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2025 Thana- KURSAKANTA District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

Chandani Devi W/o Dhokwa Ram Residents of village-Haldhara ward no.03, Police Station-Kursakanta, District-Araria. 2.

Nitesh Ram @ Nitesh Kumar Ram Son of Ramesh Ram Residents of village-Haldhara ward no.03, Police Station-Kursakanta, District-Araria. 3.

Anokha Devi Daughter of Ramesh Ram and Wife of Munna Kumar Ram Residents of village- Haldhara ward no.03, Police Station-Kursakanta, District- Araria.

4.

Chandani Devi Daughter of Suresh Ram Residents of village-Haldhara ward no.03, Police Station-Kursakanta, District-Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Lal, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Kursakanta P.S. Case No. 86 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103, 238 and 3/5 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Meera Devi, alleged that her daughter, Punam, who was married to Amrit Ram in the year 2019, was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws. On 05.09.2025, she received information

2/4 regarding her daughter's death and, upon reaching her matrimonial home, found the accused persons taking the body for cremation. It is alleged that despite there being no prior illness or intimation of death, the accused persons cremated the body without informing her.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The petitioners have been implicated in the case merely on suspicion. The petitioner no.1 is the gotni, petitioner no.2 is the nephew and petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are niece of the deceased and they have no concern with the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the deceased was suffering from illness and she died because of the same.

5. Per contra, Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, learned counsel tender his appearance on behalf of the O.P. No.2 and submitted that the daughter of the informant was killed brutally.

6. Learned APP for the State has also opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the F.I.R., and the fact that there was an alleged protest by the

3/4 informant that the cremation of the deceased would be allowed only if the accused persons transfer three kathas of land, and further considering that the death of the informant's daughter is admitted, I find, at this stage, that the complicity of petitioner No. 1, who is the gotni of the deceased, cannot be denied.

8. I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner no.1 Chandani Devi on pre-arrest bail.

9. So far as petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, in absence of any direct allegation against them, they are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Araria in connection with Kursakanta P.S. Case No. 86 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C / 482(2) BNSS.

10. The District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners are involved in some other cases as what has been stated in Para-3 of the bail petition, this order will automatically lose its force.

4/4

11. The bail application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- U T