Kalawati Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66682 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2025 Thana- BASANTPUR District- Siwan ====================================================== 1.

Kalawati Devi, aged about 45 years (F) wife of Ashok Sah 2.

Lalita Devi aged about 30 years (F) Wife of Sudish Sah 3.

Holita Devi aged about 30 years (F) wife of Sunil Sah 4.

Wakil Sah aged about 37 years (M) Son of Late Ram Swaroop Sah 5.

Rina Devi aged about 35 years (F) wife of Rajesh Sah 6.

Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Sah aged about 20 years (M) Son of Ashok Sah 7.

Punam Kumari aged about 22 years (F) daughter of Ashok Sah 8.

Shanti Kumari aged about 70 years (F) wife of Late Ramswaroop Sah All are residents of village - Ujjaina, Police Station- Lakari Naviganj, District - Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 14-10-2025 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Basantpur P.S. Case No. 123 of 2025, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 80 of the BNS.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioners along with other accused persons, have killed the daughter of the informant, due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry.

2/4

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that due to strained matrimonial relationship and some mental problem, the daughter of the informant (deceased) committed suicide as would appear from the post-mortem report. Petitioners, who are close relatives of the husband of the deceased, have been roped in a false criminal case. He further submitted that petitioners no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are sister-in-law of the deceased. Petitioner no. 4 is brother-in-law of the deceased and own brother of the husband of the deceased. Petitioner no. 6 is nephew of the husband of the deceased. Petitioner no. 7 is niece of the husband of the deceased and petitioner no. 8 is mother-in-law of the deceased, who had no concern with the married life of the deceased and her husband. Petitioners have clean antecedent. On these grounds, petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the fact that the petitioner no. 6 and 7, who are aged about 20 years and 22 years respectively, are students. Petitioners no. 1,2,3 and 5 are female members of the joint family, who live along with the petitioner no. 8, who is

3/4 mother-in-law of the deceased and also mother-in-law of petitioners no. 1,2,3 and 5. FIR don't reveal, as to whether, there was any dispute between the other female family members due to any property or any illicit relationship with the husband of the deceased. I am of the opinion that petitioners no. 1 to 7 have, prima facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.

7. The petitioners no. 1 to 7, above named, are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District Court where the case is pending, in connection with Basantpur P.S. Case No. 123 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

8. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is pending against the petitioners as what has been stated in paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.

9. So far as petitioner no. 8 is concerned, I find that she is oldest member of the family and is also mother-in-law

4/4 and her complicity in the offence cannot be denied. More so, she had not taken any effort for reconciliation between her son and the deceased, rather, she had demanded dowry, which led ultimately into death of the daughter of the informant (deceased). I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner no. 8 on pre-arrest bail at this stage.

10. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T