Sandhya Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38774 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2025 Thana- KARAKAT District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sandhya Devi Wife of Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Singh Resident of Village - Chawariya Tola, P.S.- Sanjhauli, District - Rohtas... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-10-2025 Heard Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Karakat P.S. Case No. 166 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 103, 281, 3(5) of the BNS lodged on 16.03.2025 by the informant.
3. As per prosecution story on 16.03.2025, the informant gave a written application stating therein that he along with his parents and family reside at his "nanihal" situated at Karoop Tola. It is further stated that his "nana" had three daughters out of which his mother is eldest whereas petitioner is the youngest daughter. It is further stated that since informant and his family reside at his "nanihal" so petitioner and her husband suspected that entire land is being captured by his father and mother. On 15.03.2025 at 8.30 AM, the petitioner along with her husband came to Karoop Tola on a Swift Dzire vehicle bearing registration No. BR02AU-5647 and started fighting and then threatened them to leave the village but on the intervention of
2/4 villagers the matter was pacified. On the same day at about 9.30 AM, when the informant's father namely, Subhash Singh started his motorcycle for going to Sanjhauli, upon which petitioner instructed her husband, Dharmendra Kumar to kill him by dashing his vehicle against his motorcycle and he did the same and ran over the body of Subhash Singh causing his death on the spot. Further allegation is that the informant along with her husband killed his father only for the sake of property. Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the ground of family grudge for property and she has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that specific allegation is against the husband of the petitioner, namely, Dharmendra Kumar who is said to have dashed the motorcycle of informant's father killing him on the spot by his Swift Dzire vehicle and as per inquest report which is said to have been prepared by the police, the cause of death, according to this petitioner, does not corroborate the allegation as levelled in the FIR. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Dharmendra Kumar is already in custody since 23.03.2025 and the petitioner is only an order giver, as per the allegations levelled in the FIR.
3/4
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner submitting that the entire incident has taken place due to the property dispute and the petitioner being one of the accomplices in the said occurrence, she does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties and the fact that the specific allegation is against husband of the petitioner and he is in already in custody and the allegation against the petitioner is of order giving only, this Court is inclined to extend her the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, 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) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas in connection with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial
4/4 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 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 (iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of her bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J) perwez U T