Patna High Court
Pawan DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, with conditions for cooperation and possible cancellation for non‑cooperation.
Summary
Pawan Devi, the mother‑in‑law of the deceased, was charged with cruelty, attempted murder and dowry‑related offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 307, 498A/34 and later 304B, as well as sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She applied for bail, asserting that she surrendered immediately after the court had granted her liberty to do so and has been in custody since 1 August 2025. The petitioner contended that the deceased’s own fard‑beyan, recorded on 30 October 2016, stated that the fire was accidental and denied any dowry demand, and that the husband, who is primarily responsible, is already in custody. The State opposed bail, arguing that the first fard‑beyan is unreliable and that the petitioner had previously absconded. The court, noting the petitioner’s prompt surrender, the custody of co‑accused, and the lack of evidence of kerosene smell, granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, directing the trial court to expedite framing of charges and warning that bail may be cancelled for non‑cooperation. The order also instructed the trial court to proceed expeditiously with the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the charges including dowry death and attempted murder.
- Whether the deceased’s fard‑beyan negates the prosecution’s allegation of dowry demand and intentional burning.
- Whether the petitioner’s surrender after being granted liberty and her custody status affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 307, 323, 34, 341, 498A
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- cruelty
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- accidental fire
- fardbeyan
- trial court
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67171 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2016 Thana- SAHIYARA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Pawan Devi W/o Shri Ram Babu Singh @ Ram Babu Singh @ Ram Babu
Sinha Resident of Village - Harkesh, P.S. - Sahiyara, District - Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Jha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
6 16-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 498(A)/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act and
subsequently Section 304(B) of the IPC was added.
3. Petitioner along with other accused persons are said
to have committed cruelty and to have burnt the informant after
pouring kerosene oil for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
submitted, at the outset, that upon a liberty granted to the
petitioner vide an order dated 14.07.2025 passed by this Court to
surrender and seek regular bail, the petitioner immediately
surrendered and is in custody since 01.08.2025. It is further
submitted that the first information report itself was lodged after a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67171 of 2025(6) dt.16-02-2026
2/3
delay of 8 days and the petitioner being the mother-in-law totally
denies the allegation of any dowry demand and torture being
meted out to the deceased. As a matter of fact, the deceased died
due to accidental fire and this fact has been admitted by the
deceased herself by way of her fardbeyan which was recorded on
30.10.2016 before the police in the presence of the treating doctor
and the said fardbeyan is Annexure P/3 to the petition. The father
of the informant subsequently in collusion of the police got the
second statement recorded on 04.11.2016 without any certificate
of the right physical and mental condition of the deceased by the
doctor. It has also been submitted that in the connected case of the
husband of the deceased, the doctor has been examined as P.W.-4
and he has stated in his deposition that he did not notice any smell
of kerosene oil from the body of the deceased. Further, the
husband of the deceased is already in custody and is facing trial
and the petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial.
5. Learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for
the informant have opposed the application for bail. Learned
counsel for the informant has submitted that the first fardbeyan of
the deceased is not worth believing and the petitioner has also
absconded for a long time and as such, does not deserve the
benefit of bail.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67171 of 2025(6) dt.16-02-2026
3/3
circumstances and also considering the fact that after the liberty
granted by this Court to the petitioner to surrender and seek
regular bail, the petitioner immediately surrendered and has
remained in custody since 01.08.2025 coupled with the fact that
the other co-accused persons have already been granted bail and
the husband of the deceased, who is primarily responsible for the
welfare of the wife, is already in custody and is also facing trial,
let the above named petitioner, be enlarged on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court
below where the case is pending/successor court in connection
with Sahiyara P.S. Case No. 138 of 2016.
7. However, the learned trial court is directed to
proceed with the case expeditiously and take all endevours for
framing of charges in which the petitioner shall fully cooperate
and in case there is any non-cooperation on behalf of the petitioner
and delay is caused on account of this petitioner, the learned court
concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.