Seema Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24146 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2025 Thana- PUNAURA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.
SEEMA DEVI D/o- Ramji Thakur R/v- Baghmari Ps- Sahiyara DistSitamarhi 2.
Ramji Thakur S/o- Late Jhapsi Thakur R/v- Baghmari Ps- Sahiyara DistSitamarhi 3.
Priya Devi @ Priyanka Kumari W/o- Indrajeet Thakur R/v- Baghmari PsSahiyara Dist- Sitamarhi 4.
Lalpari Devi W/o- Ramji Thakur R/v- Baghmari Ps- Sahiyara DistSitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Smt. Divya Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-07-2026 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 Punaura P.S. Case No.207 of 2025, F.I.R dated 13.09.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant's daughter, Priti Kumari, was married to Sujit Kumar on 07.05.2025. After the marriage, her husband and in-laws allegedly demanded a motorcycle as dowry and subjected her to
2/4 physical and mental cruelty for non-fulfilment of the demand. Despite a village Panchayati and her temporary return to the parental home, she was allegedly sent back to her matrimonial house, where the accused persons continued to assault and harass her. On 11.09.2025, the informant was asked over phone to take his daughter, but upon reaching the matrimonial home, he found it locked and the family absconding. Subsequently, her dead body was recovered near the bank of a pond, and the informant alleged that the accused persons had murdered her on account of the dowry demand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is the sister-in-law, petitioner No.2 is the grandfather-in-law, petitioner No.3 is the cousin and petitioner No.4 is the grandmother-in-law, who have been made accused in this case while, the marriage between the husband and the deceased daughter of the informant was nullified through Panchayat, and the relevant documents has been appended with the anticipatory bail application as Annexure-P/2. It has further been submitted that case diary was called for along with post mortem report and cause of death, which has been indicated in the post mortem report, is asphyxia due to drowning and no witnesses have recorded their statement with regard to the
3/4 petitioners complicity in causing of death of the deceased.
5. Learned APP, by referring to the materials in the case diary does not dispute the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners while, he vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application on the ground that the deceased has died a natural death.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that complicity of these petitioners, who being the in-laws, some of them aged about 65-70 years and nothing specific has surfaced during the course of investigation and the petitioners are innocent and 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, Sitamarhi, in connection with Punaura P.S. Case No.207 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
4/4 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 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