Ramita Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91426 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-330 Year-2025 Thana- KALYANPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Ramita Devi wife of Ajay Kumar Singh Resident of village- Pipra Khem, Ps- Kalyanpur, Dist- East Champaran 2.
Vishal singh son of Ajay Kumar Singh Resident of village- Pipra Khem, PsKalyanpur, Dist- East Champaran 3.
Komal Singh Daughter of Ajay Kumar Singh Resident of village- Pipra Khem, Ps- Kalyanpur, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sweta Kumari Daughter of Brij Kishore Sharma Resident of villageShankar Saraiya Babu tola, Ps- Turkauliya, dist- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Adarsh Parashar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate Mr. Mayank Raj, Advocate For the State :
Mr.Arun Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate Mr. Hemant Raj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 330 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 82(1), 85, 88, 64, 62 and 3(5) of the
2/5 B.N.S. and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The prosecution case to the effect that the informant has alleged that she was married to one Mritunjay Kumar Singh and thereafter, all the named accused persons including the petitioners started demanding a car and for which she was tortured and abused. It is further alleged that she was even burnt by boiling water and rice water. It has lastly been alleged that on 30.07.2025, the accused persons tried to strangulate her and thereafter, on the intervention of the police, she somehow managed to escape.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is the brother-in-law (dewar), and petitioner no. 3 is the sister-inlaw (nanad) of the informant. He further submits that admittedly the alleged date of occurrence is stated to be 30.07.2025 while the FIR was lodged after a delay of twenty five days on 24.08.2025 without any explanation and moreover, as per the own averments of the informant, the police had came on 30.07.2025. It has further been submitted that on plain reading of the FIR, it would be evident that absurd allegation had been levelled against the petitioners. It has next been submitted that
3/5 the father-in-law had been sent to jail and he has been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.01.2026 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 309 of 2026. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioners have clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as the learned APP for the state have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and have stated that the petitioners were all involved in torture of the informant and one of the petitioners have tried to commit rape upon the informant.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account the fact that the petitioners are the in-laws and also taking into account the fact that the petitioner no. 3 is the married sister-in-law (nanad), while petitioner no. 2 happens to be the brother-in-law (devar) with vague allegations levelled against him, let the petitioners above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 330 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code
4/5 of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their close relative.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond. (v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
5/5
7. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial. (Sourendra Pandey, J) aditya/- U T