Shailendra Singh @ Salo Singh @ Shailendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66422 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2013 Thana- PIPRIYA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.
Shailendra Singh @ Salo Singh @ Shailendra Kumar Son of Late Arjun Singh Resident of Village- Ramchandrapur, P.S.- Pipariya, Dist- Lakhisarai 2.
Shabanam Devi Wife of Shailendra Singh @ Salo singh @ Shailendra Kumar Resident of Village- Ramchandrapur, P.S.- Pipariya, Dist- Lakhisarai ... ... 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.Mithlesh Kumar Khare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Pipariya P.S. Case No. 19 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per FIR, the informant alleged that his sister Asha Devi was married to co-accused Gopal Singh in the year 2008. After marriage, co-accused Gopal Singh including the petitioners demanded a motorcycle and a gold chain. When these demands were not met, they allegedly tortured her. Later on, Gopal Singh informed the informant that Asha Devi had fled
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66422 of 2025(3) dt.17-11-2025 2/3 away from home, but the informant has firm belief that she was killed by the accused persons and her body was concealed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated. The allegation of demand of motorcycle and a gold chain is against the husband (co-accused Gopal Singh @ Bhagwana) and not against the petitioners. They have falsely been implicated merely because they are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The investigating officer has submitted final form against the petitioners. The police has not sent up the petitioners for trial but differing with the opinion of the investigating agencies, the learned court below has taken cognizance.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. There is no allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioners. It is only against the husband. The petitioners were not sent up for trial.
7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, let the petitioners, in the event of their arrest or surrender within four weeks before the learned court below, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66422 of 2025(3) dt.17-11-2025 3/3 Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lakhisarai in connection with Pipariya P.S. Case No. 19 of 2013, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T