Bhirug Nath Singh @ Bhirugnath Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24344 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2025 Thana- SIMRI District- Buxar ====================================================== 1.

Bhirug Nath Singh @ Bhirugnath Singh son of Late Bishwanath Singh Resident of village and PO -Kathar Khurd PS -Krishnabraham District -Buxar 2.

Dewanti Devi @ Dewanti Wife of Bhirug Nath Singh @ Bhirugnth Singh Resident of village and PO -Kathar Khurd PS -Krishnabraham District -Buxar 3.

Shobha Devi Wife of Dharmdeo Singh @ Dharmendra singh Resident of village and PO -Kathar Khurd PS -Krishnabraham District -Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Arti Kumari Wife of Ranjeet Singh Resident of village and Po- Narayanpur Sahiyar, Ps- Simri, Dist- Buxar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar Pradhan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Amitesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. In the present case, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Simari P.S. Case No. 149 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 86, 82(2), 303(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. As per prosecution case, the informant was married with co-accused Ranjeet Singh, who is the son of

2/4 petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and brother-in-law of petitioner no. 3. Further, prosecution case is that the co-accused Ranjeet Singh was already married and despite this fact he again married with the informant and a panchayati was called but the petitioners did not obey the panchayati and drove out the informant from their house after assaulting her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are having three sons and a partition has taken place in the family and all three sons and the petitioners live separate from each other. The husband of the informant has also been given his share in the family property. The informant and her father, on their own, solemnized the marriage of the informant with co-accused Ranjeet Singh and the petitioners have no role in the said marriage or in the subsequent matrimonial dispute between the informant and her co-accused husband. The petitioners are being victimized in the matrimonial dispute of the informant and her husband. The husband of petitioner no. 3 is working in Dubai but he has also been made accused in this case with false allegation. Learned counsel further submits that though the marriage was solemnized in the year 2022 and the cause of action also arose

3/4 in the same year but the FIR was lodged in 2025 with omnibus and general allegation of demand of dowry and concealing the second marriage of the husband of the informant and after thought and due deliberation on part of the informant. The petitioners are parents-in-law and sister-in-law of the informant and the allegations are not believable. The petitioners are having clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioners.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the general and vague nature of allegation without any substantive material about commission of offence and further considering the possibility of false implication, let the petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court concerned within a period of eight weeks from today, be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar/concerned court in connection with Simari P.S. Case No. 149 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. and other following

4/4 conditions:

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.

(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial court.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) DKS/- U T