Patna High Court
Vimla DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
Cognizance is not a material consideration for bail, and the petitioner is entitled to regular bail.
Summary
Vimla Devi, the mother‑in‑law of a deceased woman, sought regular bail in a case registered under section 80 of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that the in‑laws had killed the sister of an informant after the deceased was subjected to dowry‑related cruelty. The petitioner contended she was innocent, had no criminal antecedent, and that the husband of the deceased had already been acquitted; she had been in judicial custody since 13‑04‑2025. The State opposed the bail application. After hearing both sides, the court held that cognizance was not a bar to bail and ordered the petitioner released on a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether cognizance taken by the trial court precludes the grant of regular bail
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under sections 80 of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 80
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3
Subjects
- bail
- dowry prohibition
- cognizance
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28985 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2024 Thana- CHACKMEHSI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Vimla Devi W/o- Bhola Rai R/v- Somnaha W.No-11, Ps- Chakmehsi Dist-
Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chandan Kumar Rai S/o- Mungeri Rai R/v- Bhataura W.No-3, Ps- Hathauri
Dist- Samastipur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dilip Kumar Roy
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Choubey Jawahar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under section 80 of BNS and
Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Ranju Kumari
(deceased) was married to one Mintu Rai. It is alleged that she was
being subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of dowry
demand by her in-laws. It is further alleged that on 09.11.2024, all
the in-laws have killed the sister of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is
mother-in-law of the deceased. After investigation, police has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28985 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/2
submitted final form against her but learned trial court has taken
cognizance. Learned counsel has further submitted that cognizance
is not a material for consideration of bail. It has further been
submitted that the husband of the deceased has been acquitted by
the learned trial court. A statement has been made in para-3 of this
petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.
Moreover, she is languishing in judicial custody since 13.04.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer of regular bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with
Chakmehsi P.S. Case No. 181 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge-IX, Samastipur.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.