Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Anita DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to a Rs 30,000 bond and verification of their criminal antecedents.

Summary

The petitioners, Anita Devi and Ajeet Ram, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a dowry‑related assault case (Mahila P.S. Case No. 132 of 2025) filed under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The FIR alleged that they assaulted the informant for non‑payment of dowry. The petitioners contended they are innocent, have clean criminal records, and that the allegations are false, while the State opposed bail. The Court examined the facts, noted the relationship of the petitioners to the informant, and considered the risk of arrest. It granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioners to furnish a bail bond of Rs 30,000 and subjecting the order to verification of their criminal antecedents, with provisions for cancellation if concealment is discovered.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
  • Whether the petitioners pose a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.
  • Whether the conditions imposed under sections 2(1)(d) and 482(2) of the BNS, 2023 are appropriate.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • dowry harassment
  • Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • Dowry Prohibition Act
  • criminal procedure
  • bail bond
  • verification of antecedents

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12500 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga
                 ======================================================
           1.     Anita Devi Son of Late Hare Ram Resident of Village - Kariyan, Police
                  Station - Rosera, District - Samastipur.
           2.    Ajeet Ram @ Ajeet Kumar Ram Son of Late Hare Ram Resident of Village -
                 Kariyan, Police Station - Rosera, District - Samastipur.
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.     Gudiya Kumari Wife of Awadhesh Ram Resident of Village - Kariyan,
                  Police Station - Rosera, P.O. - Ilmas Nagar, District - Samastipur. Present
                  Address Village - Balaha, P.S. - Sadar(Fekla), Dist. - Darbhanga.
                                                                          ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mrs. Madhuri Lata, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-03-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in

                   connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 132 of 2025, dated

                   03.09.2025, lodged under Sections 85, 126(2), 115(2), 351(2),

                   352, 74 & 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter

                   referred to as “BNS, 2023”) and under Sections 3/4 of the

                   Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

                                3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged

                   against four named accused persons, including the present

                   petitioner, alleging that they all assaulted the informant due to

                   non-fulfillment of the dowry demand.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12500 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
                                            2/3




                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

          petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.

          Counsel further submits that the entire allegations made in the

          FIR are absolutely false and not acceptable. Counsel further

          submits that petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law and petitioner

          No. 2 is the brother-in-law of the informant, who are residing

          separately from the informant and other family members.

          Counsel further submits that the marriage was solemnized in the

          year 2023 and the informant was residing with her husband at

          Delhi. Counsel also submits that the criminal antecedents of the

          petitioners are clean.

                       5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          bail of the petitioners but fairly submits that the petitioner No. 1

          is the mother-in-law and the petitioner No. 2 is the brother-in-

          law of the informant.

                       6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of

          this case, let the above named petitioners be released on

          anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the

          Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing

          bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) as

          mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the BNSS, 2023 to the

          satisfaction of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga,
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12500 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
                                                      3/3




                    in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 132 of 2025, subject to

                    the conditions as laid down U/s 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

                                 7. The Trial Court is hereby directed to verify the

                    criminal antecedents of the petitioners, and in case it is found at

                    any stage that the petitioners have concealed their criminal

                    antecedents, the Trial Court shall take steps for cancellation of

                    the petitioners’ bail bond. However, the acceptance of the bail

                    bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed

                    for the purpose of or in the name of verification.



                                                                         (Dr. Anshuman, J.)

Aman Kumar/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.