Surendra Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58288 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-711 Year-2023 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Surendra Ram S/o- Late Ramchandra Ram Village- Ramnagar Ps- Harsidhi Dist- East Champaran 2.
Nirmala Devi W/o- Surendra Ram Village- Ramnagar Ps- Harsidhi DistEast Champaran 3.
Lalmuni Devi W/o- Late Ramchandra Ram Village- Ramnagar Ps- Harsidhi Dist- East Champaran 4.
Mamta Devi W/o- Anil Rai @ Anil Kumar @ Anil Ram Village- Ramnagar Ps- Harsidhi Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Abhishek Kumar- Advocate Mr. Hemant Rai- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bharat Lal- A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-09-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hemant Rai and learned APP, Mr. Bharat Lal, for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 are women and the informant alleges that his son Harendra was married to Sanju Devi, daughter of Gopal Rai about 04 years ago. Further, his son was residing with their in-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58288 of 2025(2) dt.04-09-2025 2/3 laws. It is next alleged that since 22.11.2023, the informant could not talk to his son. On 03.12.2023, he came to know that all FIR named accused persons including the petitioners killed his son by chopping of his body with sharp weapon and the chopped legs of the deceased were recovered from a river.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant based on suspicion. It is next submitted that petitioner no.1 is own brother of Gopal Rai, as such, is cousin father in-law of the deceased. Further, petitioner no.2 is wife of petitioner no.1, while petitioner no.3 is grandmother in-law of the deceased aged about 75 years and is mother of Gopal Rai and petitioner no.1. Further, petitioner no.4 is also youngest cousin mother in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that petitioners are residing separately from Gopal Rai. It is also submitted that informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that since petitioners are family members of Gopal Rai, as such, they came to be implicated with general and omnibus allegation. It is also submitted that petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58288 of 2025(2) dt.04-09-2025 3/3 application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Harsidhi P. S. Case No.711 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T