Manoj Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32869 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-369 Year-2025 Thana- SINGHWARA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.

Manoj Ray Son of Arjun Ray R/o Village -Main Tola Ps -Singhwara Dist -Darbhanga 2.

Poona Devi wife of Arjun yadav R/o Village -Main Tola Ps -Singhwara Dist -Darbhanga 3.

Inar Devi Daughter of Arjun yadav R/o Village -Main Tola Ps -Singhwara Dist -Darbhanga 4.

Munar Devi Daughter of Arjun Yadav R/o Village -Main Tola Ps -Singhwara Dist -Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-07-2026 Heard Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Parmanand Kumar Roy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the present bail application, petitioner no. 2 namely, Poona Devi and petitioner no. 3, namely, Inar Devi have been arrested. Hence, the present application with respect to them have become infructuous. Therefore, he seeks permission to withdraw the present application with respect to them.

2/4

3. Permission is accorded.

4. Accordingly, the present application with respect to petitioner no. 2 namely, Poona Devi and petitioner no. 3, namely, Inar Devi stands dismissed as withdrawn as having become infructuous.

5. The petitioner no. 1, namely, Manoj Ray and petitioner no. 4, namely, Munar Devi are apprehending their arrest in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 369 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 19.12.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

6. According to prosecution case, the informant suspects that her daughter has been killed by the accuse persons including these petitioners due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no specific allegation of assault or demand of dowry attributed against the petitioners rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including these petitioners and informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence and informant suspects that the petitioners have

3/4 killed her daughter but in fact, her daughter has committed suicide herself and petitioners have no role at all in the present occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner no. 1 is brother-in-law and petitioner no. 4 is married sister-in-law of the deceased.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioners have clean antecedent and there is no specific allegation of assault or demand of dowry attributed against the petitioners, let the petitioner nos. 1 & 4, above named, in the event of their 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M-VII, Darbhanga in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 369 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. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court

4/4 and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioners 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 petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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) Vanisha/- U T