Patna High Court
Kalinda DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted on the basis of a subsequent compromise when the offence is heinous and non‑compoundable, and the earlier rejection of bail cannot be reviewed.
Summary
The Patna High Court heard two anticipatory bail petitions arising from PS Maharajganj Case No.242 of 2021. The first petition (Cr. Misc. No.6306) sought bail on the ground of a post‑FIR compromise, but the court held that the offence was heinous and non‑compoundable, so the earlier denial of bail could not be revisited. Consequently, the petition was rejected. In the second petition (Cr. Misc. No.10586), the petitioner argued that the FIR under Section 304B IPC was not related to dowry, and the court ordered that no coercive action be taken pending further examination, directing the case diary and post‑mortem report to be produced. The matter was re‑notified for a later hearing. Overall, the court denied anticipatory bail where the offence is non‑compoundable and directed procedural steps for the second petition.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted on the basis of a subsequent compromise when the offence is heinous and non‑compoundable?
- Can the earlier rejection of anticipatory bail be reviewed by the court?
- Does the FIR under Section 304B IPC warrant coercive action if the alleged incident is not dowry‑related?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 304B IPC
- dowry death
- compromise
- high court
- bail rejection
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6306 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-242 Year-2021 Thana- MAHARAJGANJ District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Kalinda Devi W/o Suresh Ram Resident of Village- Akil Tola, PS-
Maharajganj, Distt.- Siwan.
2. Mala Kumari D/o Suresh Ram Resident of Village- Akil Tola, PS-
Maharajganj, Distt.- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 10586 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-242 Year-2021 Thana- MAHARAJGANJ District- Siwan
======================================================
Manu Ram @ Munna Ram S/O Suresh Ram Resident of Village- Akil Tola,
P.S.- Maharajganj, Dist.- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 6306 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 10586 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Zainul Abedin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 11-02-2026 Cr. Misc. No. 6306 of 2026
The present petition is the second successive
anticipatory bail petition of petitioners, who are
apprehending their arrest in Maharajganj P.S. Case No.
242 of 2021.
2. The first prayer of anticipatory bail as
pressed by petitioners has already been rejected by
one of the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6306 of 2026(2) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
through Cr. Misc. No. 28780 of 2022 dated 05.12.2022.
The present second anticipatory bail petition preferred
on the sole ground of compromise as arrived between
the parties in terms of Annexure-3 of the present bail
petition, where informant retracted from her earlier
version and said that due to certain misunderstanding,
the present FIR was lodged.
3. This Court is of the opinion that as the
offence is heinous and non-compoundable in nature
merely on the ground of subsequent compromise, the
earlier rejection of anticipatory bail cannot be reviewed
by this Court.
4. Accordingly the present petition devoid of
any merit and, therefore, same stands rejected.
Cr. Misc. No. 10586 of 2026
1. It is submitted by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that upon perusal
of FIR, it can be easily gathered that alleged
occurrence was not due to demand of dowry and,
therefore, lodging of FIR for the offence punishable
under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code appears
not convincing.
2. In view of aforesaid, let no coercive
action shall be taken against petitioner till further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6306 of 2026(2) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
order.
3. Let a legible copy of the up-to-date case
diary alongwith postmortem report be called for in
connection with Maharajganj P.S. Case No. 242 of 2021
from the Court of learned A.C.J.M.-V, Siwan/concerned
Court, positively on or before next date of hearing.
4. Re-notify this case on 27.02.2026.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U T
Checking your session…