Patna High Court
Akloo SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Akloo Sahni and Jaikal Devi, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code concerning the alleged dowry‑related death of a woman. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with other accused, strangled the deceased on 14 September 2023. The petitioners contended they were innocent, had no involvement in the matter, and maintained a clean antecedent, asserting that the accusations were false and stemmed solely from their relationship as in‑laws. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific allegations against the petitioners in the FIR. Considering the seriousness of the charges and the material on record, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitioners remain liable to arrest in the pending criminal proceeding.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under CrPC Section 438 in a case involving alleged dowry death under IPC Sections 304B and 34
- Whether the material on record justifies the denial of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- IPC 304B
- Section 34
- criminal procedure
- bail refusal
- murder
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20344 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-399 Year-2023 Thana- GAIGHAT District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Akloo Sahni Son of Mana Sahni Resident of village - Sura, P.S.- Gaighat,
District - Muzaffarpur.
2. Jaikal Devi Wife of Akloo Sahni Resident of village - Sura, P.S.- Gaighat,
District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pronoti Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
State.
2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in Gaighat P. S. Case
No. 399 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 14.09.2023
informant received information on mobile phone that her
daughter has committed suicide. It is alleged that these
petitioners along with other F.I.R. named accused persons killed
the daughter of the informant by strangulation, due to non-
fulfillment of dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20344 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/2
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
Petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case merely
because they are in-laws of the deceased. Petitioners are
separate in mess and property and have got no concern with the
affairs of the couple. Thrust of accusation is against husband of
the deceased. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed
the bail application and submitted that petitioners are named in
the F.I.R. and there is specific allegation against them that they
along with other accused persons killed the deceased by
strangulation.
6. Considering the nature and seriousness of
accusation, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is
refused.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…