Patna High Court
Rinta DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, directing release upon furnishing a bond and sureties.
Summary
Rinta Devi, the mother‑in‑law of a deceased woman, was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging that she and other family members killed the daughter‑in‑law and disposed of the body. She applied for bail, contending she has a clean record, was falsely implicated, and that the FIR contains no allegation of dowry demand, making the presumption of dowry death inapplicable. The State argued that the death occurred within seven years of marriage, invoking the statutory presumption against the husband and his relatives, and highlighted the disposal of the body as evidence of guilt. The petitioner also relied on a prior order granting regular bail to her father‑in‑law in a related matter, seeking parity. After hearing both sides, the Court, noting the petitioner’s gender and the earlier bail order, directed that she be released on bail upon furnishing a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties of equal amount.
Issues considered
- Whether the presumption under the dowry death provision applies to the petitioner despite lack of dowry demand allegation
- Whether the disposal of the body justifies denial of bail
- Whether parity with the earlier bail granted to the father‑in‑law warrants granting bail to the petitioner
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 238, 3(5), 80
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- presumption of guilt
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- parity in bail orders
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17391 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-306 Year-2024 Thana- BARBIGHA District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Rinta Devi W/o Aklu Manjhi R/o Village- Khoja Gachi, P.O. and P.S.-
Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Barbigha PS Case No. 306 of 2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody
since 13.02.2026 and the informant alleges that her daughter
was married to Chandan in the year 2018 and out of wedlock,
two sons were born, on 18-11-2024, the informant received an
information that her daughter died, accordingly, she reached the
place of occurrence, but did not find anyone, as accused persons
had absconded, nor her daughter was present, thus alleges that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17391 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
accused persons including the petitioner killed her daughter and
dispose of the dead body.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant, being mother-in-law. It is next submitted that from
perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest
that no allegation of demand of dowry is alleged. It is further
submitted that no doubt the victim died within 7 years of
marriage but then all deaths are not dowry death. It is further
submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence
and the entire allegation hinges around suspicion.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
victim died within 7 years of marriage, as such, presumption in
law is against the husband and his family members. It is also
submitted that even body was disposed of as such postmortem
of the dead body could not be carried out or else the cause of
death could have been ascertained. It is further submitted that
had the petitioner not been involved in the occurrence, in that
event, efforts would have been made to ensure that the dead
body is sent for postmortem for ascertaining the cause of death
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17391 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
but then the body was disposed of. It is further submitted that
husband single handedly could not have disposed of the dead
body.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that Aklu Manjhi had approached this Court seeking
regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.61683 of 2025 and the same
came to be allowed by an order dated 08.09.2025 passed by a
learned coordinate Bench, it is thus submitted that parity be
maintained.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
also taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is a woman
and father-in-law has been granted the privilege of regular bail,
the petitioner above-named, is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court
in connection with Barbigha P.S. Case No.306 of 2024.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…