Patna High Court
Mala DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, finding no sufficient basis to deny bail.
Summary
Mala Devi, the mother‑in‑law of a deceased woman, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 245 of 2025 alleging offences under Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to a dowry demand and alleged murder. The prosecution’s informant claimed the deceased’s husband and others demanded Rs. 2 lakh as dowry and, upon non‑payment, murdered her. The petitioner contended she lived separately, had no knowledge of the missing or death of her daughter‑in‑law, and was not involved in any day‑to‑day affairs. The court noted the allegations were general and that a brother‑in‑law in a similar situation had been granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinating Bench. Relying on Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of knowledge and involvement suffices to justify bail under Section 438 CrPC and Section 482 BNS.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 238, 3(5), 80
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- murder
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 80
- Section 238
- Section 3(5)
- Criminal Procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11726 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-245 Year-2025 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Mala Devi Wife of Vishnu Jha @ Bishnu Jha Resident of Ward no. 04,
Sahpur,Chakhabib Sahpur, P.S. - Bibhutipur, Dist. - Samastipur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Keshav Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Murli Dhar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in
connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 245 of 2025, F.I.R
dated 18.06.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, informant, Shivdani
Mishra, filed a written application before the concerned police
station alleging that he had solemnized his daughter’s marriage
with Rajesh Jha about six years ago as per Hindu customs,
giving sufficient gifts. After marriage, she went to her
matrimonial home where the accused persons allegedly
demanded Rs. 2 lakh as dowry. It is further alleged that due to
non-fulfillment of the demand, the accused persons murdered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11726 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
his daughter and caused disappearance of her dead body.
Accordingly, the case was registered against the named accused
persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased, who was living
separately in an independent house and petitioner had no
knowledge about day-to-day affairs of the deceased and her
husband and nothing specific has been alleged against this
petitioner and this petitioner is in no way connected with the
affairs of the deceased, who is said to be missing from her
parental home and later, has been found dead as per allegation,
and even the petitioner was never made aware regarding the
incident in question. For similar allegation, the brother-in-law of
the deceased has already been extended the privilege of
anticipatory bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 14424 of 2026 by the Co-
ordinate Bench and there is a delay of about 4 days in filing the
missing report. As per the allegation, the marriage is said to
have taken place 6 years ago, rather the same took place 12
years ago.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the fact that the allegations are general
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11726 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
and omnibus in nature and the petitioner was not aware of
missing of the deceased and in no way connected with the day-
to-day affairs of the deceased and for similar allegation, Co-
ordinate Bench has extended the privilege of anticipatory bail to
brother-in-law of the deceased, accordingly, this Court is
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Rosera, Samastipur in
connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 245 of 2025, subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11726 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
Checking your session…