Sumitra Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24100 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2021 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
Sumitra Devi Son of Umesh Prasad Singh @ Umesh Prasad VillageKhanpur,PS- khanpur, District - Samastipur 2.
Umesh Prasad @ Umesh Prasad Singh Son of Jhapasi Singh VillageKhanpur,PS- khanpur, District - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Adv.
Mr. Suraj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Anjali Das, Adv.
For the Informant :
Mr.Dilip Kumar Roy, Adv.
Ms. Sonia Narayan Sinha, Adv.
For the State Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are seeking regular bail in connection with Patepur P.S. Case No. 44 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Ram Bahadur Singh lodged FIR stating therein that his son Manish Kumar had gone to his Sasural but he didn't return. His son was not traced out even after a hectic search. In the morning of 27.02.2021, his dead body was found by the villagers. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24100 of 2025(5) dt.06-08-2025 2/3 informant alleged that wife of the deceased namely Pushpanjali Kumari and her family members committed murder of the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased and the dead body of the deceased was found near the house of the informant, who is a resident of District Vaishali, whereas the petitioners are residents of District Samastipur. His further submission is that, during investigation, it was detected that the deceased had consumed sulphas and died. He has also submitted that the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 306 of the IPC. Other co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is complicity of the petitioners in the alleged occurrence and they along with other co-accused persons, committed the murder of the deceased.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, let the petitioners above-named, are directed to furnish bail bond and on doing so, the court below shall release the petitioners on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24100 of 2025(5) dt.06-08-2025 3/3 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Patepur P.S. Case No. 44 of 2021, subject to the following conditions that the petitioners shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make themselves available as and when required by the court.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T