Patna High Court
Pyare PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 and 2 but granted bail to petitioner 3 subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, parents-in-law of a woman who died allegedly due to dowry demands, applied for anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. The deceased had married on 18-04-2024, and a year later was found dead, with a post‑mortem indicating throttling. The State argued that specific dowry demand accusations and the nature of the death warranted denial of bail. The court noted the specific allegations against the parents‑in‑law and, finding the evidence sufficient, refused anticipatory bail to them. However, the sister‑in‑law, who faced no specific accusation in the FIR, was granted bail on condition of sureties and compliance with Section 482(2).
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the parents‑in‑law under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita in a dowry death case.
- Whether the sister‑in‑law, lacking specific accusation, is entitled to bail.
- Applicability of Sections 126(2), 115(2), 80, 351(2)(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act to the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 80
- D.P. Act — s. ¾
Subjects
- dowry death
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- D.P. Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66651 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2025 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Pyare Prasad S/O Late Prayag Yadav R/O Village- Tekpur, P.S.- Sitamarhi,
Dist.- Nawada
2. Tunni Devi W/O Pyare Prasad R/O Village- Tekpur, P.S.- Sitamarhi, Dist.-
Nawada
3. Anshu Kumar @ Anju Kumari D/O Pyare Prasad R/O Village- Tekpur, P.S.-
Sitamarhi, Dist.- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Renu Kumari, Adv.
For the Informant : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Kumud Kishore, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State as well as learned Advocate for the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 80, 351(2)
(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section
¾ of the D.P. Act.
3. The marriage of the daughter of the informant was
solemnized with the son of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on
18.04.2024. At the time of marriage, rupees twenty five lakhs
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66651 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
were spent, however the accused persons kept on demanding
dowry. On their demand, the informant had given Rs. 1,00,000/-
to the petitioner no. 1. Later on, the deceased was again
subjected to torture and all these incidence have been
communicated to the informant and others through the mobile
phone. Ten days prior to the occurrence, the deceased disclosed
that petitioner no.1 had asked to the other family members as to
whether the demand has been fulfilled or not and if the demand
has not been fulfilled, let her kill. On 27.05.2025 in the morning
one villager has disclosed that the daughter of the informant has
been done to death, whereupon they rushed to the place.
However, noticing the informant and other family members, the
accused persons managed to flee away.
4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that so far the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are
concerned, they are parents-in-law, whereas petitioner no. 3 is
unmarried daughter-in-law. Save and except the omnibus
allegation, there is no specific accusation of any demand of
dowry and torture. Moreover, the informant was not the eye
witness to the alleged occurrence. The entire case has been
instituted on account of the fact that the deceased has died just
after one year of the marriage. It is further contended that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66651 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
petitioners were living at Kolkata at the time of alleged
occurrence and they have nothing to do with the family affairs
of the deceased and her husband.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
and the learned Advocate for the informant vehemently opposed
the pre-arrest bail application and submits that the marriage was
solemnized on 18.04.2024 and the deceased was done to death
on 27.05.2025, just after a year, but much within seven years of
marriage and that too the death was unnatural and the post-
mortem report suggest it was a case of throttling. Prior to the
death of the deceased, there was a demand of dowry and on
account of non-fulfillment of the same, she was done to death
and, as such, dowry death cannot be ruled out. The petitioner
nos. 1 and 2 are parents-in-law and there is a specific accusation
against all of them. It is lastly contended that the husband of the
petitioner is still fleeing from the course of law.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the specific accusation of demand of dowry and the resultant
death due to non-fulfillment of the same and the post-mortem
report also suggest that the cause of death is asphyxia due to
throttling, this Court is not persuaded to grant anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66651 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
to petitioner nos. 1 and 2, who are the parents-in-law of the
deceased. So far petitioner no. 3 is concerned, considering the
fact that she is unmarried sister-in-law of the deceased and there
is no specific accusation in the FIR, let the petitioner no. 3 be
released on bail, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the
court below within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-II,
Nawada in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025,
subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the further
condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family
members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
U T
Checking your session…