Kapildeo Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-322 Year-2023 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Kapildeo Sahni S/o Late Mahavir Sahni R/o Village - Sonaut, P.S - Sahebganj, District - Muzaffarpur 2.

Jitu Sahni S/o Kapildeo Sahni (But in Order Sheet wrongly typed as aged about 58 Years) R/o Village - Sonaut, P.S - Sahebganj, District - Muzaffarpur 3.

Rajpati Devi W/o Kapildeo Sahni (But in Order Sheet wrongly typed as aged about 33 Years) R/o Village - Sonaut, P.S - Sahebganj, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in Sahebganj P. S. Case No. 322 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is a case of dowry death. As per the prosecution case, the daughter of informant got married with co-accused Dharmendra Sahani two years ago. Later on, these petitioners along with other co-accused persons started subjecting her to torture and harassment for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and ultimately, accused persons killed the deceased.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 1 is father-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is Bhaisur and petitioner no. 3 is mother-in-law of deceased. Informant is not an eye witness and only a suspicion has been raised against these petitioners. Petitioners are separate in mess and property and have got no concern with the affairs of deceased and her husband. Thrust of accusation is against husband of the deceased. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submits that petitioners are in-laws of the deceased and there is direct and specific allegation that they along with other co-accused persons killed the deceased due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. The deceased died in unnatural circumstances within 2 years of marriage in her matrimonial house.

6. Considering the nature of accusation and the fact that deceased died in unnatural condition within 2 years of marriage in her in-laws' house, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T