Munna Devi @ Karani Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35718 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2026 Thana- Nagara District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Munna Devi @ Karani Devi W/o Kapildev Ray R/o Village - Ramachaura Aphaur, PS - Nagara, District - Saran 2.
Kajal Kumari D/o Kapildev Ray R/o Village - Ramachaura Aphaur, PS - Nagara, District - Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP For the Informant : Ms. Ishita Raj, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-06-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant Ms. Ishita Raj.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners after some argument seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with respect to petitioner no.1, namely, Munna Devi @ Karani Devi.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. The petitioner no.2 apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
2/4 petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and the informant alleges that his daughter was married to Jitendra on 29.11.2025, after marriage the accused persons were demanding dowry and a four-wheeler and on account of nonfulfillment of dowry demand, the victim was tortured, next alleges that on 01.03.2026 Jitendra called at 10 P.M. and informed that victim was ill, hence the informant reached the place of occurrence and saw that his daughter was assaulted and killed and her dead body was lying, thus alleges that accused persons including the petitioner killed his daughter.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant being unmarried sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased. It is next submitted that marriage of the deceased with Jitendra was a love marriage. It is further submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It is further submitted that even allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that informant alleges that he reached the place of occurrence on being informed by Jitendra and saw that his daughter was assaulted and thereafter killed but then from perusal of the postmortem report, it would
3/4 manifest that the same records that no external injury was found and the cause of death is recorded as asphyxia on account of hanging. It is thus submitted that on account of differences with her husband, the deceased committed suicide.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Learned APP after perusing the case diary, fairly submits that the postmortem report records the cause of death as asphyxia on account of hanging and does not record any external injury. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that no doubt deceased and Jitendra marriage was a love marriage and the same annoyed the parents of Jitendra, who were torturing the deceased for dowry. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Jitendra is posted with the army and on the date of occurrence also he was not present at the place of occurrence and in support of which, Army has issued a certificate, on which, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the deceased committed suicide within four months of marriage, as such presumption in law is also against the husband and family members, on which, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
4/4 reiterates and submits that petitioner is an unmarried lady and allegation against her is general and omnibus in nature and if she is sent to judicial custody in the nature of allegation as alleged, her entire career would get jeopardized.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner no.2 above-named, in the event of her arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Nagara P.S. Case No.25 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T