Manju Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59314 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2025 Thana- KURSAKANTA District- Araria ====================================================== 1.
Manju Devi W/O Dilip Yadav Resident of Village- Kamaldaha, Ward No. 08, Police Station- Kursakanata, Distt.- Araria. 2.
Nitesh Kumar @ Nitesh Yadav S/O Dilip Yadav Resident of VillageKamaldaha, Ward No. 08, Police Station- Kursakanata, Distt.- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-09-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, informant alleged that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with co-accused Banti Yadav in the year 2022 and out of the wedlock, she was blessed with a female child. It is alleged that thereafter, all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners, committed torture and harassment with the victim for non-fulfillment of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59314 of 2025(2) dt.01-09-2025 2/3 additional demand of dowry. It is further alleged that on 16.05.2025, all the accused persons, including these petitioners, committed murder of daughter of informant and thereafter cremated her.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. Petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case merely because Petitioner No. 1 happens to be mother-in-law and Petitioner No. 2 happens to be brotherin-law of the deceased. Petitioners are separate in mess and property and have got no concern with the affairs of the deceased and her husband. Informant is not an eye witness of the alleged occurrence. Thrust of accusation is against husband of deceased who is already in custody. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, general and omnibus nature of accusation and clean antecedents of the petitioners, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59314 of 2025(2) dt.01-09-2025 3/3
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named petitioners be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st, Araria in connection with Kursakanta P.S. Case No. 42 of 2025, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T