Patna High Court
Bhirug Nath Singh @ Bhirugnath SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
In view of the vague allegations and lack of substantive material, the court held that the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioners, who are the parents‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law of the informant, were implicated in a dowry‑related case (PS‑Simri Case No. 149 of 2025) under Sections 86, 82(2), 303(2), 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable (B.N.S.) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They contended that the allegations were vague, that they had no role in the informant’s marriage or subsequent dispute, and that they were being falsely implicated. The prosecution’s case relied on the informant’s claim that the petitioners had driven her out after assault and that the co‑accused had concealed a second marriage. The court examined whether the material on record was sufficient to justify denial of bail and considered the possibility of false implication. Finding the allegations general and unsupported by substantive evidence, the court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. to grant bail, subject to conditions. The petitioners were ordered to furnish bail bonds of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties and to remain present as required by the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail despite the FIR containing vague and unspecific allegations.
- Whether the court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. to release the petitioners on bail.
- Whether the prosecution has produced sufficient material to justify continued detention of the petitioners.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- dowry prohibition
- false implication
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- vague allegations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24344 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2025 Thana- SIMRI District- Buxar
======================================================
1. Bhirug Nath Singh @ Bhirugnath Singh son of Late Bishwanath Singh
Resident of village and PO -Kathar Khurd PS -Krishnabraham District
-Buxar
2. Dewanti Devi @ Dewanti Wife of Bhirug Nath Singh @ Bhirugnth Singh
Resident of village and PO -Kathar Khurd PS -Krishnabraham District
-Buxar
3. Shobha Devi Wife of Dharmdeo Singh @ Dharmendra singh Resident of
village and PO -Kathar Khurd PS -Krishnabraham District -Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arti Kumari Wife of Ranjeet Singh Resident of village and Po- Narayanpur
Sahiyar, Ps- Simri, Dist- Buxar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar Pradhan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Amitesh Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioners are
apprehending their arrest in connection with Simari P.S. Case
No. 149 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 86,
82(2), 303(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. As per prosecution case, the informant was
married with co-accused Ranjeet Singh, who is the son of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24344 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/4
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and brother-in-law of petitioner no. 3.
Further, prosecution case is that the co-accused Ranjeet Singh
was already married and despite this fact he again married with
the informant and a panchayati was called but the petitioners did
not obey the panchayati and drove out the informant from their
house after assaulting her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in
this case. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are having three sons and a
partition has taken place in the family and all three sons and the
petitioners live separate from each other. The husband of the
informant has also been given his share in the family property.
The informant and her father, on their own, solemnized the
marriage of the informant with co-accused Ranjeet Singh and
the petitioners have no role in the said marriage or in the
subsequent matrimonial dispute between the informant and her
co-accused husband. The petitioners are being victimized in the
matrimonial dispute of the informant and her husband. The
husband of petitioner no. 3 is working in Dubai but he has also
been made accused in this case with false allegation. Learned
counsel further submits that though the marriage was
solemnized in the year 2022 and the cause of action also arose
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24344 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
3/4
in the same year but the FIR was lodged in 2025 with omnibus
and general allegation of demand of dowry and concealing the
second marriage of the husband of the informant and after
thought and due deliberation on part of the informant. The
petitioners are parents-in-law and sister-in-law of the informant
and the allegations are not believable. The petitioners are having
clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP opposes the submission made on
behalf of the petitioners.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the
general and vague nature of allegation without any substantive
material about commission of offence and further considering
the possibility of false implication, let the petitioners above
named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court
concerned within a period of eight weeks from today, be
released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Buxar/concerned court in connection with Simari
P.S. Case No. 149 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. and other following
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24344 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
4/4
conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close
relative of the petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners will remain present
on each and every date fixed by the
court below, if so required by the
learned trial court.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
U T
Checking your session…