Rinta Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35370 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-306 Year-2024 Thana- BARBIGHA District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== 1.
RINTA DEVI W/o- Aklu Manjhi Village- Khoja Gachi Po Ps- Barbigha Dist- Sheikhpura 2.
Aklu Manjhi S/o- Late Gendo Manjhi Village- Khoja Gachi Po Ps- Barbigha Dist- Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, Advocate Mr. Sunny Kumar, Advocate Mr. Saurav Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Satyendra Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Barbigha P.S. Case No. 306 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant has alleged that she married her daughter to one Chandan Manjhi according to Hindu rites and rituals in 2018. After the marriage, the couple was blessed with two children. On 18.11.2024, at around 7:00 AM, she received information that her daughter had died. When she went to her daughter's matrimonial home, she found that all the in-laws were absent. Further, she raised
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35370 of 2025(3) dt.20-08-2025 2/3 suspicion that the in-laws of her daughter had killed her and concealed the dead body.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the case appears to have been lodged based on vague suspicion, as the deceased allegedly died due to a snake bite while she had gone out for a nature call. Thereafter, the petitioners informed the deceased's maternal family, who came and participated in the funeral rites. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law and Petitioner No. 2 is the father-inlaw of the deceased, and no specific allegations have been made against them. The husband of the deceased, Chandan Manjhi, is already in custody. There is no one else in the household to care for the couple's two minor children.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail.
6. From perusal of F.I.R., it appears that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners to kill the deceased and got her dead body disappeared. From perusal of case diary, it appears that petitioners are absconding since long.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I am not persuaded to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35370 of 2025(3) dt.20-08-2025 3/3 petitioners stands rejected.
8. However, if the petitioners surrender and pray for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the Court below on its own merit, without being prejudiced by this order. (S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Ankit Kumar/- U T