Sugiya Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81002 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2025 Thana- Mufassil District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.
Sugiya Devi D/o Jagat Yadav, W/o Sajan Kumar Resident of VillageHaripur, P.S.-Salkhua, Distict-Saharsa. 2.
Anupam Kumari W/o Sanjeet Yadav Resident of Village-Barkhandi Tola, P.S.-Muffasil, District-Khagaria.
3.
Priyanka Kumari W/o Brajesh Yadav Resident of Village-Barkhandi Tola, P.S.-Muffasil, District-Khagaria.
4.
Mausham Kumari W/o Ajeet Yadav @ Awdhesh Yadav Resident of VillageBarkhandi Tola, P.S.-Muffasil, District-Khagaria. 5.
Sulekha Devi W/o Jagat Yadav Resident of Village-Barkhandi Tola, P.S.- Muffasil, District-Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rabindra Kumar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-01-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rabindra Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are women and the informant alleges that his daughter was married to Abhisan Yadav on 02.05.2024 and after four months of the marriage, the accused persons including the petitioners started
2/4 demanding motorcycle and on non-fulfillment of the demand the victim was tortured. The victim informed about the torture and demand to the informant, hence, the informant went to the house of the accused persons and made them understand. It is next alleged that the victim was killed by the accused persons on 24.08.2025 by hanging her to a fan and on receiving the information, he reached the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his daughter lying.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that if what is being alleged is true in that event why no FIR came to be instituted by the informant or the victim alleging that dowry is being demanded and on account of non-fulfillment of the same, torture is being committed. It is further submitted that had the petitioners been involved in the occurrence then efforts would have made to dispose of the dead body with a view to conceal the evidence but then the dead body was sent for postmortem
3/4 for ascertaining the cause of death. It is next submitted that no doubt, the death took place within seven years of marriage and presumption in law is against the husband and his family members but then all deaths are not dowry deaths. It is also 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 further submitted that petitioners are the sister-in-law (married Nanad and Gotani) and the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is further submitted that the husband of the deceased is presently absconding and efforts are being made to ensure that he surrenders or seeks anticipatory bail but then it is reiterated and submitted that petitioners are women and they came to be implicated in a mechanical manner. It is next submitted that petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.
5. Mr. Rabindra Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. 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
4/4 court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 Khagaria Mufassil P.S. Case No. 120 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T