Meela Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21884 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-705 Year-2024 Thana- BIDUPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Meela Devi W/o Bhushan Ray R/o village - Manjhauli, Ward no-08, P. S - Bidupur, District - Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Hemant Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2025
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case No. 705 of 2024 dated 04.11.2024 registered u/s 115(2), 126(2), 109, 89, 85, 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and section 3 / 4 of the D.P. Act.
3. As per the prosecution story on 03.11.2024 the informant's husband - Rajiv Rai and mother-in-law: Meela Devi (petitioner) locked her in a room and beaten her badly with an iron rod due to which the informant, who was carrying seven months pregnancy suffered miscarriage. The informant was married in the year 2017 and ever since marriage the accused persons demanded dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the same she was beaten up and various sorts of cruelty was meted out to her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21884 of 2025(2) dt.01-05-2025 2/2 is innocent and she has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the informant and she did not demand any kind of dowry at any point of time. The informant was never tortured and also the baby in her womb did not die due to assault. The informant is having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law (Bahnoi) and when her husband protested the present false case has been lodged. The petitioner is living separately from her son and the informant since 2019. The petitioner is 60 years old lady having clean antecedent.
5. Regard being had to the submission made by the parties, taking into consideration the fact that in the impugned order it has come that informant has reiterated the version of F.I.R. in paragraph no. 3 of the case diary and witnesses in paragraph nos. 4 & 5 of the case diary have supported the case of prosecution, S.D.P.O., Sadar, Hajipur in his supervision note has found the case true and there is direct allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T