Laddu Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60033 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-379 Year-2025 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.
Laddu Manjhi Son of Late Raghu Manjhi R/o Village - Ashadhi, P.S. - Hilsa, Dist. - Nalanda.
2.
Sunder Devi Wife of Ladhu Manjhi R/o Village - Ashadhi, P.S. - Hilsa, Dist. - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Lovekush Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-09-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the D. P. Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no.2 is a woman and the informant alleges that his daughter was married to Shailendra in the Year 2022, after marriage the accused persons including the petitioners started demanding Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle, on account of non-fulfilment of
2/4 the demand the victim was tortured. Further, on 15.06.2025 at 12.30 A.M., he received an information that the daughter has been strangulated to death. Accordingly, he came to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his daughter an accused persons had fled.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioners are father inlaw and mother in-law of the deceased. It is also submitted that informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. It is next submitted that allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that no doubt, the death of the victim took place within seven years of marriage, but then, all deaths are not dowry deaths. It is also submitted that had the petitioners been involved in the occurrence, in that event, efforts would have been made to dispose of the dead body with a view to conceal evidence, but then, the dead body was lying in the house. It is further submitted that whenever any dispute arises in between the husband and wife and the occurrence of the nature as alleged takes place, the entire family members are implicated in a mechanical manner with general and omnibus allegation. The
3/4 learned counsel submits at Para-7 of the anticipatory bail application, it has been specifically pleaded that Nilam Devi, aunt of the deceased at Para-15 of the case diary, who claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence has stated that victim committed suicide. The learned counsel reiterates and submits that had the petitioners been involved in the occurrence, then definitely they would not have wanted the post mortem of the dead body to be carried out as cause of death would have been ascertained, but since they were not involved in the occurrence, hence no effort was made to dispose of the dead body. It is further submitted that husband of the deceased is in custody. 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 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 S.D.J.M.,
4/4 Hilsa, Nalanda in connection with Hilsa P. S. Case No.379 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. However, it is made clear that in the event, if any application is filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioners, despite giving assurance to this Court, are not cooperating in the investigation or are not presenting themself as and when required, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners after recording reasons.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Police Station through the learned trial Court. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T