Jai Narayan Sah @ Deep Narayan Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37041 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-242 Year-2025 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

Jai Narayan Sah @ Deep Narayan Sah son of Late Bullu Sah @ Nandipat Sah Resident of Village- Bherokhra, P.S.- Harlochanpur (Patepur), DistrictVaishali. 2.

Urmila Devi Wife of Jai Narayan Sah @ Deep Narayan Sah Resident of Village- Bherokhra, P.S.- Harlochanpur (Patepur), District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Prakash Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Nirmala Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-07-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Patepur PS Case No. 242 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that his sister was married to Bipin in the year 2020, after marriage, the accused persons were demanding a bullet motorcycle and for non-fulfillment of the demand, the victim was tortured, further out of wedlock, a female child was born,

2/4 who presently is aged about 3 years, next alleges that on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand, the accused persons including the petitioners killed the victim by poisoning and strangulating her to death.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. It is next submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It is further submitted that no doubt it is alleged that after marriage, a bullet motorcycle was being demanded but then the allegation of demand also appears to be general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that the informant alleges that victim was poisoned and strangulated to death on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand, but then from the postmortem report, it would manifest that the same records hemorrhage due to internal bleeding caused by hard and blunt substance. It is next submitted that whenever any dispute in between the husband and the wife arises and the occurrence of the nature as alleged takes place, the entire family members are implicated in a mechanical manner with general and omnibus allegations.

3/4 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that victim died within seven years of marriage. It is next submitted that though informant in the FIR alleges that the victim was poisoned and strangulated to death but then it appears that the informant having some wrong information alleged that victim was poisoned and strangulated to death when the postmortem report records the cause of death as hemorrhage due to internal bleeding caused by hard and blunt substance. It is also submitted that even rib of the deceased was found fracture, which amply demonstrates that the victim was assaulted brutally leading to her death. It is fairly submitted that though informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence, but then it does not appear probable that petitioners who reside in the same house were not aware that as to how the victim died. It is also submitted that investigation in the case is continuing. 6.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submission made by learned APP and also the fact that the victim died within seven years of marriage on account of assault by hard and blunt substance, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4/4 7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T