Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Umrawati DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

Umrawati Devi, the mother‑in‑law of a woman who was allegedly set on fire for dowry demands, was named in an FIR containing charges under several sections of the B.N.S. and the Dowry Prohibition Act. She filed an application for anticipatory bail, asserting that she is innocent, has a clean record, and was implicated merely because of her familial relationship to the victim. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific accusation against her and the seriousness of the alleged dowry‑death offence, which caused 18‑23% burns to the victim. The court examined the direct nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offences and the delay in filing the FIR. Considering these factors, the court concluded that the petitioner does not merit the protection of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the specific accusations under the B.N.S. and Dowry Prohibition Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • dowry death
  • Dowry Prohibition Act
  • Indian Penal Code
  • criminal procedure
  • bail jurisprudence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6157 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2025 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Umrawati Devi Wife of Surendra Sing Resident of Village- Katalpur
                 (Fakalpura), P.S.- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner     :        Mr. Anand Vardhan, Advocate
                                                 Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Advocate
                 For the State          :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-02-2026                    Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                  2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),

                   127(1), 115(1), 118(1), 124(1), 85, 109(1), 351(3), 352 and 3(5)

                   of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

                   Act.

                                  3. As per prosecution case, marriage of sister of

                   informant was solemnized with co-accused Ranjan Singh in the

                   year 2020 as per Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged after

                   marriage, all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including this

                   petitioner, started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment

                   of demand of dowry, all the accused persons set the sister of
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6157 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                         2/2




                       informant on fire by pouring kerosene oil.

                                    4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                       behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has

                       committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in

                       this case merely because she happens to be mother-in-law of the

                       victim. The present F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay

                       of 7 days and there is no plausible explanation for the same.

                       Petitioner is a lady and claims clean antecedents.

                                    5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has

                       vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

                       the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.

                       with specific accusation that she, along with other F.I.R. named

                       accused persons, set the victim on fire due to non-fulfillment of

                       demand of dowry as a result of which, the victim suffered 18%

                       to 23% burn injuries.

                                    6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                       case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of

                       offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner

                       is rejected.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.