Patna High Court
Nitu KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The Court allowed the bail application, directing the petitioners to be released on bail with conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Nitu Kumari and Shima Devi, were arrested in connection with the death of Ranjit Sah and charged under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. They contended that the death was natural, citing a post‑mortem report that could not determine cause of death and a forensic‑science‑lab report that found no poison or drug. They also highlighted a two‑day delay in filing the FIR, the absence of any external or internal injuries, and their clean criminal record. The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioners were the wife and mother‑in‑law of the deceased and that strong circumstances existed against them. After considering the medical reports, the lack of material evidence, and the petitioners’ willingness to cooperate, the Court granted regular bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions to appear in court and not tamper with evidence. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence on record establishes a prima facie case of murder warranting denial of bail
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the inconclusive post‑mortem affect the bail decision
- Whether the petitioners are likely to tamper with evidence or flee if released on bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- post‑mortem report
- forensic science laboratory report
- delay in FIR
- Sections 103, 61, 3 B.N.S.
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14038 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-707 Year-2025 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
======================================================
1. Nitu Kumari W/O Late Ranjit Sah, D/O Shiv Kumar Sah R/o Vill.- Pirauna,
P.S - Garkha, District - Chapra, Saran. At Present Add. Vill.- Rasulpur, P.S.-
Derni, Dist.- Saran.
2. Shima Devi W/O Shiv Kumar Sah R/o Vill.- Pirauna, P.S - Garkha, District -
Chapra, Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 30-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No.
707 of 2025 dated 22.09.2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the allegation, the marriage of petitioner
No.1 was performed with the deceased on 29.04.2024. It is
alleged that petitioner No.1 and her family members were
forcing the deceased for a divorce. On the fateful day i.e. on
18.09.2025, the petitioner No.1 is alleged to have taken her
jewellery from the almirah and was pressurizing her deceased
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14038 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026
2/4
husband to accompany him to her parental house. It is alleged
that on 20.09.2025, the informant got information as regards the
death of his deceased son Ranjeet Sah. After she got a prior
information from his matrimonial home that his physical
condition is not good and on way it was stated that the deceased
son of the informant was being taken to Sadar Hospital, Chapra
for treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that there is delay of two days in lodging of the present FIR and
the opinion of death as per the post-mortem report is that the
death cannot be ascertained and viscera was kept preserved for
chemical analysis. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also
submitted that there was no external or internal injury on the
person of the deceased. It has further been submitted that as per
the FSL report which was called for on earlier occasion by order
dated 12.03.2026 goes to show that “No alkaloidal, pesticidal,
volatile, metal poison or drugs could be detected in the contents
of exhibit marked 1 and 2 as described above”. Hence, referring
to post-mortem report as well as the FSL report, it has been
submitted that this is not a case of murder or unnatural death. It
has further been submitted that the informant as per own
admission was informed about the bad physical condition of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14038 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026
3/4
deceased and it was also informed that he was being taken to a
local hospital for treatment. The inquest report of the deceased
was prepared at the Sadar Hospital, Chapra which further shows
that he was under treatment at the said hospital. The petitioners
are in custody since 17.12.2025 having no criminal antecedent
and petitioners undertake to co-operate in the trial. The
petitioner No.2 happens to be the mother-in-law of the deceased
and against both the petitioners there are absolutely no material
against them.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the bail petition of the
petitioners and have stated that the petitioners are wife and
mother-in-law of the deceased and there are strong
circumstances against them.
6. Heard the parties and perused the record, the
petitioners above-named, are directed to be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail-bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned Court concerned, Saran at Chapra , in connection
with Garkha P.S. Case No. 707 of 2025, with following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioners are directed to co-operate in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14038 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026
4/4
trial and be well represented on each and every date fixed in the
trial and failure to appear on two consecutive dates, the court
below would be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioners.
(ii) It is further directed that the petitioners will not
tamper with the evidence and if they do so, appropriate
application be filed by the prosecution side.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U T
Checking your session…