Ramayan Sao v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79704 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2025 Thana- DIDARGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
Ramayan Sao S/O Late Gangu Sao @ Gangoo Ram R/O VillageGulemhiyabagh, Police Station- Deedarganj, Distict- Patna 2.
Sushila Devi W/O Ramayan Sao R/O Village- Gulemhiyabagh, Police Station- Deedarganj, Distict- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raj Krishna Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Jai Narain Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-01-2026
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, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are senior citizens and the informant alleges that marriage of her daughter was solemnized with Akash on 06.03.2025 and after marriage, the victim was subjected to torture for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, further on 27.06.2025 at 4.30 P.M. the
2/4 informant received an information that her daughter was killed on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, accordingly she reached the matrimonial house of her daughter where she saw her daughter lying on the bed with neck swollen.
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 and allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that no doubt the victim died within an year of marriage, as such presumption in law is against the husband and his family members but then all deaths are not dowry deaths. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant on coming to know that her daughter was killed came to the matrimonial home where she found the dead body lying.
It is submitted that had the petitioners along with other family members been involved in the occurrence of killing the deceased, in that event, the efforts would have been made to dispose of the dead body with a view to conceal the evidence but then the dead body was sent for postmortem for ascertaining the cause of death.
3/4 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 reiterated and submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that husband of the deceased is in custody and 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 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 no effort was made to dispose of the dead body rather the dead body was sent for postmortem for ascertaining the cause of death and in the postmortem it was found that V-shape ligature mark was present on the neck which points towards suicide.
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
4/4 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 Deedarganj P.S. Case No.228/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T