Dinanath Rajbhar @ Dinanath v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80442 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2025 Thana- VIJAYEPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

Dinanath Rajbhar @ Dinanath S/O Late Buddhan Rajbhar @ Late Buddhan R/O Vill.- Ghatbandhora, Madhwa tola, P.S.- Vijayepur, Dist.- Gopalganj. 2.

Belee Devi @ Beila Devi W/O Dinanath Rajbhar @ Dinanath R/O Vill.- Ghatbandhora, Madhwa tola, P.S.- Vijayepur, Dist.- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP For the Informant : Ms. Priya Raj, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-12-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are father-inlaw and mother-in-law of the deceased. It is next submitted that petitioner no.1 is aged about 85 years and petitioner no.2 is aged about 80 years and have remained a person with clean antecedent all through out. It is next submitted that informant

2/4 alleges that his sister was married to Lalbabu on 22.11.2024, after marriage, the accused persons were torturing the victim for a motorcycle and a chin, further on 27.03.2025, his other sister Rajkumari informed that the accused persons have killed the victim by strangulating her, accordingly, the informant along with other family members reached the place of occurrence and saw that the accused persons were taking the dead body on a pick-up vehicle, when police came and the dead body was sent for postmortem.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners being father-in-law and mother-in-law have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence nor the allegation as alleged even remotely suggest that sister of the informant namely Rajkumari Devi had witnessed the occurrence. It is next submitted that no doubt the death of the victim took place within a very short span of time after marriage but then all deaths are not dowry death. It is further submitted that even allegation of demand of dowry is general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that accused persons were taking away the dead body on a pick-

3/4 up vehicle, when police came. It is submitted that the accused persons themselves have informed the police about the death of the victim and they were taking her to hospital for postmortem when the police came. It is further submitted that the postmortem report records the cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging. It is next submitted that whenever any dispute arises in between the husband and the wife and the occurrence of the nature as alleged takes place, the entire family members are implicated in a mechanical manner with general and omnibus allegation. It is also submitted that had the petitioners been involved in the occurrence in that event, efforts would have been made to dispose of the dead body with a view to conceal the evidence but then the police was informed.

It is also submitted that it is not the case of the informant that he informed the police, based on which, the police came to the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that petitioners are nearing their grave and at this stage of life came to be implicated in the instant case based on suspicion. It is further submitted that petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for

4/4 anticipatory bail of the petitioners but then are not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and omnibus in nature and neither the informant nor his sister Rajkumari are eyewitness to the occurrence and that the entire allegation hinges around suspicion.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below 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 learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Vijayepur P.S. Case No.87/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T