Samida Khatoon @ Hamida Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69396 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2025 Thana- SUPPI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.

Samida Khatoon @ Hamida Khatoon W/O Jimdar Sai Resident of VillageSonaul Subba Sheikh Toli, P.S.- Suppi, Dist- Sitamarhi. 2.

Jimdar Sai S/O Late Md. Jann Sai Resident of Village- Sonaul Subba Sheikh Toli, P.S.- Suppi, Dist- Sitamarhi.

3.

Guddu Sai @ Md. Akib S/O Jimdar Sai Resident of Village- Sonaul Subba Sheikh Toli, P.S.- Suppi, Dist- Sitamarhi.

4.

Pintu Sai @ Sakibreja S/O Jimdar Sai Resident of Village- Sonaul Subba Sheikh Toli, P.S.- Suppi, Dist- Sitamarhi.

5.

Raushan Khatoon @ Raushani Khatoon W/O Shahid Shah R/O VillageBela Mobarkpur, P.S- Bhutahi, Distt.- Sitamarhi, D/O Jimdar Sai, R/O Sonaul Subba Sheikh Toli, P.S- Suppi, Distt.- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Suppi P.S. Case No. 27/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 127(1), 115(2), 352, 80, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. As per prosecution case, marriage has been solemnized between the informant's daughter and co-accused, Laddu Sai on the basis of mutual love and consent. It is alleged

2/4 that the petitioners and other started demanding a Bullet motorcycle in dowry. It is alleged that petitioners threatened that if the demand of bullet motorcycle was not met, the informant's daughter would be killed. Furthermore, on 12.01.2025, the informant visited his daughter's matrimonial home, where he found her unconscious. When he inquired about her condition, none of the petitioners responded. Thereafter, the informant took his daughter to SKMCH for treatment, where she was provided medical care, but unfortunately, she died during the course of treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioners bear no criminal antecedent. As per version of FIR, it was not an arrange marriage, rather, it was a love marriage between co-accused Laddu Sai and the informant's daughter and hence, the allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioners is false and fabricated. He further submits that the petitioners have no role to play in the alleged occurrence. The informant's daughter was sick and necessary treatment was meted out to her and during course of treatment she died, as is evident from the FIR. He further submits that the deceased died on 28.01.2025 and the postmortem was

3/4 conducted on 29.01.2025 and on 29.01.2025 the informant gave his fardbeyan in SKMCH though she was under treatment since 20.01.2025. The postmortem report indicates that the deceased died due to disease of lungs and liver. The inquest report has been prepared and the deceased was pregnant. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners rather the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. He further submits that petitioner no.1 is mother-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is father-in-law, petitioner no.3 is Bhaisur (brother-in-law), petitioner no. 4 is Dewar (brother-in-law) and petitioner no. 5 is Nanad (sister-inlaw) of the deceased. He orally submits that the petitioners are living separately from the husband and his wife (deceased). He further submits that the petitioners having no say in family affairs of the deceased and her husband. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case just because they are relatives of the husband of the deceased. He further submits that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged occurrence.

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners have participated in the alleged occurrence and they cannot escape from the allegation made in the FIR.

4/4

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view clean antecedent of petitioners, petitioners having no say in family affairs of the deceased as the informant's daughter (deceased) and co-accused, Laddu Sai solemnized their marriage on the basis of mutual love and consent, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the material available on record, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail 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 Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Sitamarhi in connection with Suppi P.S. Case No. 27/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

7. Accordingly, the application stands allowed. (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkumar/- U T