Manju Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23960 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2025 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.
Manju Devi Son of Bharat Kumar Resident of Village - Kotwara, P.S. - Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad.
2.
Sanju Devi Wife of Hiralal Sao Resident of Village - Kotwara, P.S. - Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad.
3.
Mahendra Sao Son of Late Pandit Sao Resident of Village - Kotwara, P.S. - Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 27-07-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 77 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 80, 238(a) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., lodged on 14.02.2025 by the informant Shivratiya Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that she was informed by a villager that her daughter is no more and they taking steps for consigning the mortal remains on flames. When they reached place, she was already consigned to flames. The marriage took place four years ago and the couple
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23960 of 2026(5) dt.27-07-2026 2/2 was also blessed with a child but she was always tortured for dowry. This led to the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they are family members living separately and have no role to play in the matter.
5. Learned APP Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh representing the State opposes the prayer submitting that they chose not to have any postmortem nor waited for the informant and immediately consigned the mortal remains to the flames. Despite the matter is of the February, 2025, the husband is still roaming free.
6. Considering the submissions put forward by the parties, no relief can be extended to the petitioners, the anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T