Patna High Court
Chhathi DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court granted bail to petitioners No.1 and No.4 while denying bail to petitioners No.2 and No.3.
Summary
The petitioners, four members of the Yadav family, sought bail after an FIR was lodged alleging a dowry‑death under sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They contended that the deceased died of natural causes and that the FIR was filed four days after the death with a motive to extort money. The State opposed bail. The Court examined the FIR, the age of the accused (an 80‑year‑old woman and an 18‑year‑old man) and the nature of the allegations, and applied Section 2(1)(d) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 together with Section 482(2) for bail conditions. It granted bail to petitioners No.1 (Chhathi Devi) and No.4 (Amit Kumar Yadav) upon a bond of ₹30,000 each, but rejected bail for petitioners No.2 and No.3, finding the allegations serious enough to warrant continued detention.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to accused persons under sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in a dowry‑death case.
- Whether the age of the accused and the delay in filing the FIR justify bail.
- Whether Section 2(1)(d) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 482(2) provide a basis for granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 2(1)(d), 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5)
Subjects
- dowry death
- bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
- age of accused
- FIR delay
- false allegations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4979 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2025 Thana- RIVILGANJ District- Saran
======================================================
1. Chhathi Devi Wife of Late Natha Yadav Resident of Village- Khairwar, P.S.-
Revilganj, District- Saran
2. Chathi Devi @ Chhathi Devi Wife of Rudal Yadav Resident of Village-
Khairwar, P.S.- Revilganj, District- Saran
3. Sangeeta Devi Wife of Ramesh Yadav Resident of Village- Khairwar, P.S.-
Revilganj, District- Saran
4. Amit Kumar Yadav @ Amit Yadav @ Uma @ Gunga Son of Rudal Yadav
Resident of Village- Khairwar, P.S.- Revilganj, District- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Harish Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection
with Rivilganj P.S. Case No. 261 of 2025 lodged on 11.08.2025,
for the offences punishable under sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution, the F.I.R. has been lodged
alleging that the daughter of the informant was killed due to
non-fulfillment of the demand for dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4979 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence, and the
present case has been instituted on the basis of false and
concocted allegations. Learned counsel further submits that the
alleged occurrence took place on 08.08.2025, whereas the F.I.R.
was lodged after a delay of four days, for which no satisfactory
explanation has been furnished. It is further submitted that the
petitioners have no concern with the family affairs of the
deceased, as they were living separately from her. Learned
counsel also submits that, in fact, the deceased died due to
severe stomach pain and, while being taken to the hospital, she
expired on the way. The informant and his family members were
duly informed of the said fact, and the dead body was cremated
in their presence. However, with an ulterior motive to extort
money, the present F.I.R. has been lodged by making false
allegations against the entire in-laws’ family, including
petitioner no.1, namely, Chhathi Devi, who is about 80 years
old, and petitioner no.4, Amit Kumar Yadav @ Amit Yadav @
Uma @ Gunga, who is about 18 years old.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail.
6. Upon specific query of the Court about the
husband, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4979 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
husband of the deceased has not surrendered presently as per his
knowledge and he is trying to pursue bail.
7. After going through the FIR and considering the
age of petitioner no.1, namely, Chhathi Devi and petitioner no.
4, namely, Amit Kumar Yadav @ Amit Yadav @ Uma @
Gunga, let them be released on bail, in the event of their arrest
or surrender before the Trial Court within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bond of ₹30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand only) each, as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to the satisfaction of
the learned J.M. 1st Class, Saran, Chhapra, in connection with
the aforementioned case, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.
8. So far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned,
considering the nature of allegation levelled in the FIR, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to them. Accordingly, their
prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
U T
Checking your session…