Anamani Devi @ Anmani Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69340 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2025 Thana- JITNA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Anamani Devi @ Anmani Devi Wife of Ram Babu Rai Resident of Village - Bijabani, P.S. - Jitna, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-01-2026 Heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 12.06.2025 in connection with Jitna P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 12.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 123 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, the informant claimed that all the accused persons including this petitioner killed his daughter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69340 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026 2/3 any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner has been made accused merely on the ground that she is mother-in-law of the deceased. It appears from the F.I.R that there is no specific allegation of assault or demand of dowry against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including this petitioner. The husband of the deceased, namely, Sudhir Prasad Yadav who happens to be son of the petitioner is in judicial custody. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 12.06.2025.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner has clean antecedent and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM, Sikrahana at Dhaka, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Jitna P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69340 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026 3/3 and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T