Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23554/2026bail rejected

Seema Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-22Mr. Justice Praveen Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23554 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2025 Thana- MOHAMMADPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Seema Devi Wife of Rajesh Sahni RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DIPAU PAKARI P.S - MOHAMMADPUR, GOPALGANJ, BIHAR ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Md. Farooq, Advocate Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kalyan Shankar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application for anticipatory bail arises out of Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 133 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 80 and 238 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. As per the allegation, the petitioner along with co-accused persons murdered the daughter of the informant for non-fulfillment of the dowry demand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is sister-in-law of the deceased and there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner is in custody and no presumption would be drawn against her as she is herself a daughter-in-law

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23554 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 2/2 of the family.

5. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the petitioner has been declared as an absconder and processes under Sections 84 and 85 of the BNSS have been issued against her on 21.07.2025 and 22.08.2025 respectively.

6. Heard the parties and perused the record. Considering the fact that 84 and 85 of the BNSS processes have been issued against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the same is accordingly rejected.

(Praveen Kumar, J) Pawan/- U T