Sarita Devi @ Saroj Bharti v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38437 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2026 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Sarita Devi @ Saroj Bharti W/O Manoj Mahaseth @ Manoj Kumar Mahaseth R/o- Vill.-Pandasarai, P.S.- Laheriya Sarai, Dist.- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Shambhu Sah S/o- Bihari Sah R/O- Vill.- Pauram, P.S.- Hayaghat, Dist.- Darbhanga.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Kaushal Kishore, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Laheriya Sarai P.S. Case No.202 of 2026 for allegedly having committed offences under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, to the effect that he received information from the in-laws family of his daughter that she has committed suicide. When the informant along with other family members reached the matrimonial home of his daughter, she was found lying dead on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38437 of 2026(3) dt.23-07-2026 2/3 the bed. A Dupatta was tied on her neck and when the informant enquired from the in-laws family of his deceased daughter, they informed him that she committed suicide in the night itself. It is alleged by the informant that for the last two years, his son-inlaw and Gotni of his deceased daughter always used to quarrel with her and his son-in-law also used to assault her, due to which she committed suicide. It has further been alleged that the daughter of the informant was pregnant at the time of death.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case since she is wife of the elder brother of the deceased lady. He further submits that the petitioner and her husband used to reside separately from the deceased lady and her husband. It has further been submitted that when the mother-in-law of the deceased did not fulfill her demand of earring, she committed suicide and the husband of the petitioner himself informed the informant about the alleged occurrence and both the sides participated in funeral ceremony of the deceased. He further submits that the husband of the deceased is in custody since 14.04.2026. It is also submitted that the petitioner has got a clean antecedent.
5. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. for the State opposes
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38437 of 2026(3) dt.23-07-2026 3/3 the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that the informant has named the petitioner and the husband of the deceased lady with regard to torturing and assaulting his daughter and at the time of death, the deceased was pregnant.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and after going through the records as well as the case diary, it would transpire that witnesses have supported the case of the informant and there is specific allegation of torture against this petitioner as well as the husband of the deceased lady who is already in custody.
7. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected in connection with Laheriya Sarai P.S. Case No.202 of 2026, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. (Ritesh Kumar, J.) Sanjay/- U