Usha Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39846 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2024 Thana- TARAPUR District- Munger ====================================================== 1.
Usha Devi Wife of Bibhuti Chaudhary @ Bhibhuti Chaudhary Resident of Village - Kamargama, Police Station - Tarapur, District - Munger. 2.
Bittu Chaudhary Son of Bibhuti Chaudhary @ Bhibhuti Chaudhary Resident of Village - Kamargama, Police Station - Tarapur, District - Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Chhopal Singh Son of Late Sohan Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Parmanandpur, Police Station - Shambhuganj, District - Banka. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Surya Narayan Sah For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Kalyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-10-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. According to prosecution case, one Sonam Kumari married Piyush Chaudhary on 29.04.2024. After the marriage, the petitioners and co-accused (Piyush Chaudhary, Bittu Chaudhary, and Usha Devi) allegedly pressured her to provide a glamour motorcycle and 5 lakh in cash. When their demands were not ₹ met, they reportedly harassed her. On 07.06.2024, Sonam Kumari was allegedly murdered, her body disappeared, and the accused absconded.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39846 of 2025(3) dt.15-10-2025 2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against these petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and the husband is in judicial custody. The petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law of the deceased and petitioner No.2 is brother-in-law and there is nothing specific with regard to demand of dowry and subjecting her to cruelty for the same. It has further been submitted that in this case, a compromise petition is also said to have been filed by the informant, father and mother of the deceased stating therein that due to misunderstanding, the said case has been instituted.
5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the allegations against these petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and no overt act has been alleged against these petitioners. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39846 of 2025(3) dt.15-10-2025 3/3 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, Munger, in connection with Tarapur P.S. Case No. 122 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other 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 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) sharun/- U T