← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./47375/2025bail granted

Lalita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-30Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47375 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2025 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Lalita Devi wife of Satrughan Yadav @ Shatrudhan Yadav Village -Bhagwani Ward no 01 PS -Ghailadh (Madhepura ) District -Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Md. Shakir Ahmad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Madhepura (Ghailadh O.P.) P.S. Case No. 183 of 2025, registered for the offences under Sections 103(1) & 61(2) of the B.N.S.

3. As per the prosecution case, the son of the informant left his house on receiving a phone call. In the morning his dead body was recovered hanging in a bamboo clamp. On investigation, the fact came to the knowledge that the deceased was in regular contact with the daughter of the petitioner and informant showed her suspicion that the

2/4 petitioner, her husband and her daughter along with 2-3 unknown persons called out his son and killed him.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The son of the informant went missing at 09:00 P.M. on 07.02.2025 and his dead body was found in the morning at 05:00 A.M. on 08.02.2025, meanwhile the informant did not make any effort to search her son. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence and the petitioner has been made accused in the case because her daughter was in regular contact with the deceased and it was found that there was love affair between them. It has also come during investigation that the daughter of the petitioner was married with some other person.

The deceased was having friendship with the son of the petitioner and other co-accused persons who have been taken into custody and the daughter of the petitioner disclosed that the son of the informant was killed by co-accused Dilkhush Kumar and Ajay Kumar. The petitioner was never seen in the company of the deceased. The petitioner is in custody since 02.04.2025 and charge sheet has been submitted against her. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned

3/4 counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant submits that since the daughter of the petitioner was having affair with the deceased son of the informant, the petitioner and her family members have conspired and killed the son of the informant.

6. Having regard to the fact and circumstances and submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the vague nature of allegation and lack of substantive material to connect the petitioner with the offences as alleged and also considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady having clean antecedent and her period of custody and submission of charge sheet, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Madhepura/concerned court, in connection with Madhepura (Ghailadh O.P.) P.S. Case No. 183 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under Section 480(3) of the BNSS and other following conditions:

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on

4/4 each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial court.

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Anuradha/- U T