Harendra Singh @ Harendra Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36698 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2024 Thana- HATHUA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.
Harendra Singh @ Harendra Rai S/O Late Kedar Singh Resident of Vill.- Mahaicha, P.S.- Hathua, Dist.- Gopalganj 2.
Vidanti Devi W/O Harendra Singh @ Harendra Rai Resident of Vill.- Mahaicha, P.S.- Hathua, Dist.- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 11-09-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Hathua P.S. Case No. 198 of 2024 for the offence under sections 109 and 85 of the BNS and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act lodged on 14.08.2024 by the informant, Priyanka Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that she was married to one Ritesh Kumar Singh, the nuptial knots were tied in the year 2017 but continuously, she was tortured for dowry. Earlier, a compromise took place, she returned to the in-laws house but later, allegation is that the mother in law, Vidanti Devi (petitioner no. 2) and Supriya
2/4 Kumari once again, resorted to abuse/assault. When she protested, the allegation is that the food items that were being prepared for the animals, were thrown upon her causing serious burn injuries. It was only due to timely intervention of the villagers, that she could be saved. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the FIR is exaggerated, though there are burn injuries, the same have been found to be simple in nature, the parties have compromised and in any case, the father-in-law (petitioner no.
1) has no role to play in the matter.
5. Learned APP, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh on the other hand opposes the prayer submitting that the burn injuries have been found which support the prosecution story.
6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties and the way petitioner no. 2, Vidanti Devi has behaved in the matter despite the fact that she herself is a woman, the daughterin-law has been assaulted and the burn injuries that has been found in the injury report supports the case, in that background, this Court is not inclined to extend her the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. So far as the petitioner no. 1, Harendra Singh @ Harendra Rai is concerned, no role has been attributed to him
3/4 and he is only the column of accused person, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. Let the petitioner no. 1, Harendra Singh @ Harendra Rai be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj/concerned Court in connection with Hathua P.S. Case No. 198 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner no. 1, Harendra Singh @ Harendra Rai who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner no. 1, Harendra Singh @ Harendra Rai shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner no. 1, Harendra Singh @ Harendra Rai shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the
4/4 witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) the petitioner no. 1, Harendra Singh @ Harendra Rai shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T