Reema Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72432 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2025 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Reema Kumari D/O Late Kishnath Rai R/O Village- Totha Jagatpur, P.SPanapur, Distt.- Saran at Chapra. 2.
Parvati Devi D/O Late Kishnath Rai R/O Village- Totha Jagatpur, P.SPanapur, Distt.- Saran at Chapra. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-11-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. The Station House Officer, Panapur Police Station, Saran at Chapra and the Investigating Officer of the case in compliance of the order dated 11.11.2025 are present in the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are women and the informant alleges that his son Vikash Kumar was married to Reema Kumari in the year 2023. Further, 3-4 months after the marriage, Vikash Kumar had gone to bring Reema Kumari back but his wife and her family members refused. It is next alleged that
2/4 Vikash Kumar on 15.05.2025 again went to his in-laws' place and stayed in the night and on 16.05.2025 an unknown person called the informant and disclosed that Vikash Kumar was wriggling near a pond, accordingly, the informant informed the police and the police reached the place of occurrence and brought Vikash Kumar to the PHC, Panapur and the Doctors declared him dead during the course of treatment, thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem. It is next alleged that Reema Kumari intended to perform her second marriage, thus, Vikash Kumar was assaulted by Deepak Kumar, Reema Kumari, Parvati Devi and Rajeshwari Devi and also poisoned his food and when his condition deteriorated they threw him near a pond.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case being the wife and the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that an unknown person called him and informed that Vikash Kumar was wriggling near a pond, accordingly, he informed the police and the police came to the place of occurrence and brought Vikash Kumar to the PHC where the Doctors declared him dead. It is next submitted that had the accused persons including the petitioners been poisoned Vikash Kumar in that event they would never had thrown him near
3/4 the pond while he was alive as chances was bright that he could have been saved.
6. The Investigating Officer of the case, who is present in the Court, at this stage, submits that on information the police reached the place of occurrence and found that Vikash Kumar was alive and, thus, was brought to the PHC where the Doctors declared him dead.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the deceased was the son from the first wife of the informant and after the death of his first wife, the informant had performed his second marriage and from the second marriage two children were born and the informant had Willed all the properties in favour of his sons from his second wife which had irked Vikash Kumar, as such, it appears that Vikash Kumar committed suicide.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it does not appear probable that the petitioners would have killed Vikash Kumar for the reason that no mother-in-law would want her daughter to become a widow. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, no material was found to even remotely connect Reema Kumari with the allegation that she intended to perform her second marriage. It is next submitted that petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the
4/4 investigation to prove their innocence.
9. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, let 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 bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each 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 Panapur P.S. Case No. 164 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
11. The personal appearance of the Station House Officer, Panapur Police Station, Saran at Chapra and the Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T