Patna High Court
Mahinur Khatoon @ Mehnur Khatun @ Mehnur KhatoonversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that, given the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the absence of incriminating evidence, anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC read with Section 482 B.N.S. must be granted.
Summary
Mahinur Khatoon, the mother‑in‑law of a deceased woman alleged to have been dowry‑relatedly tortured and murdered, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that she, along with others, participated in the dowry harassment and murder of the informant’s daughter. The petitioner contended she was falsely implicated, had no involvement in the family dispute, possessed a clean antecedent, and that the alleged co‑accused (her son‑in‑law) was already in custody. The State opposed the bail. Considering the lack of substantive evidence, the petitioner’s age and clean record, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC read with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ordering bail bonds and sureties. The order emphasized that the bail conditions could be cancelled upon breach or discovery of concealed criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in view of the allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement in a dowry‑related death warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 80
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- Section 80 B.N.S.
- Section 3(5) B.N.S.
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38853 of 2026
Arising Out of P.S. Case No.-5. Year-2026. Thana- KASBA. District- Purnia
======================================================
Mahinur Khatoon @ Mehnur Khatun @ Mehnur Khatoon. W/o Mukhtar Ali @ Md Mukhtar
Ali. R/o village- Tinghariya, Mahantbari, Ward no. 25, P.S.- Kasba, District- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Avnish Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in
connection with Kasba P.S. Case No. 05 of 2026 registered for
the offence(s) under Section(s) 80, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that he had married his daughter to Sahabul Haque, and
on 06.01.2026, he was informed by his son-in-law that his
daughter had committed suicide. It has also been alleged that all
the named accused persons including the petitioner used to
torture his daughter for non-fulfillment of dowry and the
accused persons have connived and committed murder of the
daughter of the informant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case merely because she happens to be the mother-in-law of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38853 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
deceased/daughter of the informant. It has further been
submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the family
dispute of her son and the allegation of the demand of dowry
and torture is not proved by any evidence. It has next been
submitted that the husband of the deceased /son of the present
petitioner is already in custody. It has lastly been submitted that
the petitioner is an old person and carries clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let
the petitioner, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of her arrest or surrender before the concerned
Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today,
on her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the concerned Court/successor Court where the
case is pending in connection with Kasba P.S.
Case No. 05 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
read with corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38853 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to
the following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be
his/her close relative and the other shall be a local
resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
concerned Court.
(iv) If the petitioner, in future, is found to be
involved in similar nature of offence(s), the prosecution
shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his/her bail
bonds.
(v) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he/she has concealed his/her criminal
antecedents, the Court concerned shall take necessary
steps for cancellation of his/her bail bond. 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.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
sweta/- (Sourendra Pandey, J)
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.