Munni Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65647 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2025 Thana- RS P.S. District- Madhubani ====================================================== Munni Devi W/O Bhagwan Jha R/O Village- Laxmipur, P.S.- Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-12-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that his sister was married to Chandan on 25.05.2022, after marriage, the accused persons were demanding Rs. 2 Lakhs and a motorcycle and for non-fulfillment of the demand, the victim was tortured, further on account of non-fulfillment of the demand, the accused persons including the petitioner on 06.06.2025 strangulated her to death, on receiving the
2/4 information, the informant came to the place of occurrence and informed the police, further he was threatened that if a case is instituted, he along with the child of the deceased would be killed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant being mother-in-law of the deceased. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and the entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It is further submitted that had the petitioner been involved in the occurrence in that event efforts would have been made to dispose of the dead body with a view to conceal the evidence, but then that was not done rather the dead body was sent for postmortem to ascertain the cause of death.
It is also submitted that no doubt the victim died within seven years of marriage, but then all deaths are not dowry deaths.
3/4 allegations. It is further submitted that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the postmortem report records- white frothing discharge from both nostrils, bruise of length 5"x0.5" extending from left to right side neck anterior region thorax cartilage. It is next submitted that that husband of the deceased was taken in custody and he had moved this Court seeking regular bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 64086 of 2025 and the same was allowed by an order dated 10.09.2025 passed by a learned Co-ordinate Bench. It is next submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove her innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with R.S. Jhanjharpur P.S. Case No. 46 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down
4/4 under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.
7. However, it is made clear that in the event if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned Trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner despite giving assurance to this Court is not co-operating in the investigation, in that event the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned police station through the learned Trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T