Rubi Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35147 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2025 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna ====================================================== Rubi Devi Wife of Ravi Yadav @ Ravi Kumar Resident of Village - Pansari, Ps- Dulhin Bazar, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shashank Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 175 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 3, 4 of the D.P. Act.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that, as per the written complaint of the informant, he had solemnized the marriage of his daughter, namely Preeti Kumari, with Ashok Yadav in the year 2020 according to Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that after marriage, the deceased was subjected to harassment by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry, specifically a motorcycle. It is further alleged that on 17.07.2025 at about 4:25 PM, the informant received
2/4 information that his daughter had been killed by her husband and other family members, whereafter the informant reached the matrimonial home and found her dead under suspicious circumstances. It is also alleged that the minor son of the deceased was concealed by the accused persons, and thereafter the FIR came to be instituted on 18.07.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that petitioner has been made an accused in the present merely on the ground that she is sister-in-law of the deceased. It is next submitted that from perusal of the FIR it appears that although the petitioner is named in the FIR but there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act or demand of dowry attributed against her rather the allegations are general and omnibus in nature against all the accused persons including the petitioner.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that petitioner has clean antecedent and there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act or demand of dowry
3/4 attributed against her, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Danapur, Patna in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 175 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
4/4 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T