Patna High Court
Manoj RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to petitioners Manoj Ray and Munar Devi subject to conditions, and the applications of Poona Devi and Inar Devi were dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary
Four relatives of a deceased woman applied for bail in a dowry‑death case (Singhwara P.S. Case No. 369 of 2025) under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. During the pendency of the application, two petitioners (Poona Devi and Inar Devi) were arrested, rendering their bail applications infructuous, and the court allowed their withdrawal. The remaining petitioners (Manoj Ray and Munar Devi) claimed they had clean antecedents, were falsely implicated, and that the daughter’s death was a suicide with no specific dowry‑demand allegation against them. The prosecution opposed bail. Considering the lack of specific allegations and the petitioners’ clean records, the court granted bail to the two remaining petitioners subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, while dismissing the applications of the two arrested petitioners as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to petitioners accused under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 in a dowry‑death case.
- Whether the bail applications of petitioners who were subsequently arrested become infructuous and may be withdrawn.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 3(5), 80
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- Section 80 BNS 2023
- Section 3(5) BNS 2023
- Section 438 CrPC
- clean antecedent
- withdrawn application
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32869 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-369 Year-2025 Thana- SINGHWARA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Manoj Ray Son of Arjun Ray R/o Village -Main Tola Ps -Singhwara Dist
-Darbhanga
2. Poona Devi wife of Arjun yadav R/o Village -Main Tola Ps -Singhwara Dist
-Darbhanga
3. Inar Devi Daughter of Arjun yadav R/o Village -Main Tola Ps -Singhwara
Dist -Darbhanga
4. Munar Devi Daughter of Arjun Yadav R/o Village -Main Tola Ps -Singhwara
Dist -Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 Heard Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Parmanand Kumar Roy, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
during pendency of the present bail application, petitioner no. 2
namely, Poona Devi and petitioner no. 3, namely, Inar Devi
have been arrested. Hence, the present application with respect
to them have become infructuous. Therefore, he seeks
permission to withdraw the present application with respect to
them.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32869 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/4
3. Permission is accorded.
4. Accordingly, the present application with respect to
petitioner no. 2 namely, Poona Devi and petitioner no. 3,
namely, Inar Devi stands dismissed as withdrawn as having
become infructuous.
5. The petitioner no. 1, namely, Manoj Ray and
petitioner no. 4, namely, Munar Devi are apprehending their
arrest in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 369 of 2025,
F.I.R. dated 19.12.2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
6. According to prosecution case, the informant
suspects that her daughter has been killed by the accuse persons
including these petitioners due to non-fulfillment of demand of
dowry.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is
no specific allegation of assault or demand of dowry attributed
against the petitioners rather there is general and omnibus
allegation against all the accused persons including these
petitioners and informant is not the eye witness of the alleged
occurrence and informant suspects that the petitioners have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32869 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
3/4
killed her daughter but in fact, her daughter has committed
suicide herself and petitioners have no role at all in the present
occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner no. 1 is
brother-in-law and petitioner no. 4 is married sister-in-law of the
deceased.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioners have clean antecedent and there is no
specific allegation of assault or demand of dowry attributed
against the petitioners, let the petitioner nos. 1 & 4, above
named, in the event of their 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) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M-VII,
Darbhanga in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 369 of
2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other
following conditions:-
i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32869 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
4/4
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 tampers 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)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.