Patna High Court
Sita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioners as there is no specific evidence linking them to the alleged dowry demand or murder.
Summary
The petitioners, who are relatives of the deceased's husband, sought bail fearing arrest in a dowry‑death case (Mainatand P.S. Case No. 226 of 2025) where the prosecution alleged they demanded Rs. 2 lakh and a motorcycle as dowry and, when refused, murdered the informant’s daughter. The petitioners contended they had no involvement, lived separately, and were not beneficiaries of any dowry demand, emphasizing the lack of specific allegations against them under Section 80(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted the petitioners' separation from the crime scene, absence of direct evidence, and the informant’s alleged mistake. Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioners subject to a bond of Rs. 10,000 each, two sureties, and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S. The bail order also imposed compliance requirements such as regular court appearances and prohibition against tampering with witnesses or evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners, alleged co‑accused in a dowry‑death case, are entitled to bail under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita given the lack of specific incriminating material against them.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 238(a), 3(5), 482(2), 61(2)(a), 80(2)
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 80
- Section 238
- Section 61
- Section 3
- Section 482
- criminal law
- family relations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25379 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2025 Thana- MAINATAND District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Sita Devi W/o Vyas Patel @ Vyas Raut Resident of Village- Hamja Tola,
Mainatand, P.S.- Mainatand, District- West Champaran
2. Vyas Patel @ Vyas Raut S/o Late Rajkishore RAut @ Late Rajvanshi Patel
Resident of Village- Hamja Tola, Mainatand, P.S.- Mainatand, District- West
Champaran
3. Sujit Kumar S/o Vyas Patel @ Vyas Raut Resident of Village- Hamja Tola,
Mainatand, P.S.- Mainatand, District- West Champaran
4. Prakash Kumar S/o Vyas Patel @ Vyas Raut Resident of Village- Hamja
Tola, Mainatand, P.S.- Mainatand, District- West Champaran
5. Sarita Devi W/o Sujit Kumar Resident of Village- Hamja Tola, Mainatand,
P.S.- Mainatand, District- West Champaran
6. Sugrim Patel @ Sugriv Patel @ Sugriv Rawat S/o Late Rajkishore Raut @
Late Rajvanshi Patel Resident of Village- Hamja Tola, Mainatand, P.S.-
Mainatand, District- West Champaran
7. Dhurpati Devi W/o Sugrim Patel @ Sugriv Patel Resident of Village- Hamja
Tola, Mainatand, P.S.- Mainatand, District- West Champaran
8. Ramlal Patel S/o Late Rajkishore Raut @ Late Rajvanshi Patel Resident of
Village- Hamja Tola, Mainatand, P.S.- Mainatand, District- West Champaran
9. Lalpari Devi W/o Ramlal Patel Resident of Village- Hamja Tola, Mainatand,
P.S.- Mainatand, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 20-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Mainatand P.S. Case No. 226 of 2025 dated
23.11.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
80(2), 238(a), 61(2)(a), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25379 of 2026(3) dt.20-05-2026
2/4
2023.
3. As per prosecution case, the accusation against the
accused persons including the petitioners is of demanding
rupees two lakh and a motorcycle as dowry from the
Informant’s daughter and when their demands were not met,
they murdered her and disposed of her body.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence as
alleged in the F.I.R. It is submitted that the petitioner nos.1 & 2
are mother and father, petitioner nos. 3 & 4 are brother,
petitioner no.5 is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi), petitioner nos. 6 &
8 are uncles and petitioner nos. 7 & 9 are aunt of the co-accused
Rajkumar Patel (husband of the deceased). It is the case of the
petitioners that the petitioners have no concern with the family
affairs of the deceased and her husband as they were living
separately in mess and property from the co-accused Rajkumar
Patel. It is next submitted that no specific allegation attributing
any overt act to the petitioners has been made so as to attract the
provisions of Section 80(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, nor is there any
material to suggest that the petitioners were beneficiaries of the
alleged demand of dowry in any manner. It is further submitted
that the husband of the deceased, namely, Rajkumar Patel, is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25379 of 2026(3) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
already in judicial custody, and the two minor children of the
deceased, aged about two and four years respectively, are
presently being nourished and brought up by their grandparents,
i.e., petitioner nos. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that the
petitioners are ready to cooperate in the investigation and also in
trial if sent up by the prosecution, finding incriminating
materials against them. It is lastly submitted that good sense
have been prevailed with the Informant and having realized his
mistake, the Informant is said to have made an application
before the court concerned that under misconception, such case
has been lodged by him.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the fact that the petitioners were living separately
and had no concern with the alleged demand of dowry and
further taking into account that the death, which is stated to have
been caused by asphyxia as a result of hanging, took place in the
house where the husband and the deceased were residing, which
is situated far away from the place where the petitioners reside
as also there being nothing specific against the petitioners, let
the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25379 of 2026(3) dt.20-05-2026
4/4
their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection
with Mainatand P.S. Case No. 226 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. as
well as the following conditions;
(i) One of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document / personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.