Anamani Devi @ Anmani DeviversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69340 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2025 Thana- JITNA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Anamani Devi @ Anmani Devi Wife of Ram Babu Rai Resident of Village -
                 Bijabani, P.S. - Jitna, District - East Champaran.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   20-01-2026                  Heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional

                   Public Prosecutor for the State.

                               2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since

                   12.06.2025 in connection with Jitna P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025,

                   F.I.R. dated 12.06.2025 for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 103(1), 123 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

                               3.     According to prosecution case, the informant

                   claimed that all the accused persons including this petitioner

                   killed his daughter.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been

                   implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the

                   F.I.R is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69340 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026
                                            2/3




          any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner has been made

          accused merely on the ground that she is mother-in-law of the

          deceased. It appears from the F.I.R that there is no specific

          allegation of assault or demand of dowry against the petitioner

          rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the

          accused persons including this petitioner. The husband of the

          deceased, namely, Sudhir Prasad Yadav who happens to be son

          of the petitioner is in judicial custody. He further submits that

          the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against

          the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 12.06.2025.

                      5.    Learned       Additional       Public   Prosecutor   has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          that the petitioner has clean antecedent and there is no specific

          allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R, let the petitioner,

          above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

          10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM, Sikrahana at

          Dhaka, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Jitna P.S.

          Case No. 128 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-

                       i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

          properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69340 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026
                                                        3/3




                      and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and

                      on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

                      reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                                   ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

                      witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to

                      move for cancellation of bail.

                                   iii. And further condition that the court below shall

                      verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

                      any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her

                      criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

                      cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

                      acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                      shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                      verification.



                                             (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-

U      T