Patna High Court
Bharti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioners, subject to strict conditions, as the FIR lacks specific allegations against them and they have a clean antecedent.
Summary
Bharti Devi and Alok Kumar, the mother‑ and father‑in‑law of the deceased Babli Kumari, sought bail after being implicated in a dowry‑related murder case (Panapur Kariyat P.S. Case No. 35 of 2026). The informant alleged that the petitioners demanded Rs. 10,00,000 as dowry and, upon non‑payment, threatened and ultimately caused the death of the daughter‑in‑law by strangulation. The petitioners contended that the FIR contains only vague, omnibus allegations and that there is no specific charge of assault or dowry demand against them, emphasizing their clean antecedent. The prosecution opposed bail, asserting the petitioners' participation in the crime. The court, noting the lack of specific allegations, the petitioners' clean record, and that the husband is already in custody, granted bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 438(2) of the CrPC despite allegations under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the BNS in a dowry‑death case.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 3(5), 80(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- dowry harassment
- Section 438 CrPC
- BNS
- criminal procedure
- murder
- dowry demand
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31714 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2026 Thana- Panapur District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Bharti Devi W/o Alok Kumar R/o Village - Raushan Panapur, PS.- Panapur
Kariyat, District - Muzaffarpur.
2. Alok Kumar S/o Late Chandeshwar Singh R/o Village - Raushan Panapur,
PS.- Panapur Kariyat, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Sahi, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Madhukar Anand
: Mr. Shubham Kumar Singh
For the Informant : Mr. Upendra Kumar Chaubey
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-07-2026 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Panapur Kariyat P.S. Case No. 35 of 2026 for
the offences punishable under Sections 80(2), 3(5) of BNS.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant
namely Nandlal Pandey in his computer typed complaint inter
alia alleges that her daughter namely Babli Kumari got married
with Akash Kumar @ Ranu on 21-04-2024. He further alleges
that at the time of marriage he had given gifts as per his
capacity, but after four months of marriage, his son-in-law 1.
Akash Kumar @ Ranu, 2. Father-in-law Alok Kumar, 3.
Mother-in-law Bharti Devi, 4. Rupali Devi and 5. Sakshi Devi,
W/o Tishu Thakur started demanding Rs. 10,00,000/- for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31714 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
2/4
business and on non-fulfillment of their demand, they started
threatening and harassing his daughter. He further alleges that
after getting information about the same from his daughter, he
along with co-villagers Vinod thakur, Bharat Thakur, Kashinath
and Ratnesh Kumar tried to pacify the things and also showed
his incapacity. He further alleges that on 07-03-2026, his son-in-
law informed him, that health of his daughter is in bad state and
she is being taken to hospital, after which he along with his
villagers went to matrimonial house of his daughter and saw that
his daughter is laying dead and there was scar on her neck. He
further asserts that her daughter has been murdered by above
named persons by strangulating her for non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits
that petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been
implicated in the present case merely on the ground that
petitioners are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased.
It is next submitted that from perusal of the FIR it appears that
there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act or demand
of dowry is attributed against the petitioners rather the
allegations are general and omnibus in nature. Learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners further submits that son of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31714 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
3/4
petitioners, namely, Akash Kumar, who is happened to be the
husband of the deceased, is in custody since 09.03.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that
petitioners are named in the FIR and they have participated in
the present crime in question.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the fact that petitioners have clean antecedent and they are
in-laws of the deceased and there is no specific allegation
against the petitioners in the FIR and son of the petitioners, who
is happened to be the husband of the deceased, is in custody
since 09.03.2026, let the petitioners, above named, in the event
of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of
thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.V,
Muzaffarpur (West) in connection with Panapur Kariyat P.S.
Case No. 35 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
with other following conditions:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31714 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
4/4
i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.