Sakshi Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73681 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2025 Thana- DHARHARA District- Munger ====================================================== 1.
Sakshi Singh W/o Prince Kumar @ Prince Singh R/o Village- Dariyiapur, P.S.- Munger (Muffasil), District- Munger 2.
Simran Kumari D/o Sanjay Singh R/o Village- Mohanpur, P.S.- Dharhara, Dist.- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-11-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Dharhara PS Case No. 29 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 80, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 on 04.02.2025 by the informant, Mosmat Radha Devi.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant has alleged that her daughter performed love marriage with the co-accused, Prashant Kumar in the year 2023 and after some time of the marriage, she was regularly ill treated by her in-laws due to dowry. It has further been alleged that she got information from the villagers on 11.02.2025 that her pregnant daughter has been killed by her in-laws and all the accused persons have fled away. Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
2/4 these two petitioners are sisters-in-law of the deceased and they have falsely been implicated in this case. It has next been submitted that petitioner no.1, Sakshi Singh is the married sister-in-law (Nanad) who resides in Delhi and is in no way connected with the alleged incident and she has not even been named in the FIR while petitioner no.2. Simran Kumari is an unmarried sister-in-law (Nanad) and there is no specific allegation of overt-act against her to show any complicity in the said commission of crime and the allegation being general and omnibus in nature, these petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions as imposed by the Court.
5. Learned APP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners submitting that the cruelty of the in-laws is very much apparent from the FIR itself that a young lady carrying pregnancy of four months has been eliminated due to the greed of dowry. However, he further concedes that these petitioners are sisters-in-law and petitioner no.1 resides in Delhi having separate mess and business while petitioner no.2 is a student pursuing studies.
6. Considering the nature of allegations and the fact
3/4 that petitioner no.1 lives in Delhi having no concerned with the alleged occurrence, she has not been even named in the FIR and petitioner no.2 is a student pursuing studies and there is nothing specific against her, this Court is inclined to extend the petitioners the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the subordinate court within a period of six weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with aforesaid P.S. Case to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Munger, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as also subject to the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation and make themselves available to the police as and when required;
4/4 (iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J) perwez U T