← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40339/2025bail granted

Rinku Devi @ Rinku Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-03Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40339 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2024 Thana- Chakmesi District- Samastipur ====================================================== Rinku Devi @ Rinku Kumari, D/O Bhola Roy, W/O Amarnath Mahto R/O Vill.- Somnaha, Ward no. 11, P.S.- Chakmehsi, Dist.- Samastipur, At Present Village - Sakra Faridpur P.S.- Sakra, Dist. - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Chandan Kumar Roy, S/O Mungeri Roy, R/O Vill.- Bhataura, Ward no. 3, P.s.- Hathauri, Dist.- Samastipur.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Chakmehsi P.S. Case No. 181 of 2024, dated 10.11.2024, registered under Section 80 of the B.N.S and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of the informant's sister namely Ranju Kumari (deceased) was solemnized with co-accused Mintu Rai (husband of the deceased) in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremony. On 09.11.2024, all the F.I.R. named accused

2/4 persons including the petitioner murdered informant's sister by strangulating her due to non-fulfillment of demand of Motorcycle.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to village politics and petitioner is a lady. Allegations levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is general and omnibus. There is no specific allegation of overtact against the petitioner. The husband of the deceased Mintu Rai has surrendered in this case and is in custody since 10.03.2025. It has next been submitted that upon marriage the petitioner is residing in Muzaffarpur along with her husband and on the alleged date of incident and on even before she was not present at the place of occurrence. Therefore, there is no complicity in any manner of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid fact that the petitioner is the Nanad of the deceased and has falsely been implicated in this case due to village politics as there is no

3/4 specific allegation of overtact against the petitioner, upon marriage the petitioner is residing in Muzaffarpur along with her husband and on the alleged date of incident and on even before she was not present at the place of occurrence and petitioner is a lady and allegations levelled in the F.I.R. is general and omnibus, let the above named petitioner, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Classcum-Additional Munsif, Samastipur in connection with Chakmehsi P.S. Case No. 181 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as well as the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner (s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner (s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for

4/4 two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner (s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the 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 (s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) pravinkumar/- U