Patna High Court
Sarita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the petitioners were not directly implicated in the dowry‑death and granted them bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Sarita Devi and Rangila Kumar, mother‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law of the deceased, were implicated in a dowry‑death case (Shahkund P.S. Case No. 123 of 2024) under Sections 304B and 201 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for allegedly causing the death of the informant’s sister over a Rs 2 lakh dowry demand. The petitioners contended that they had no daily or domestic contact with the deceased, lived separately, and that the dowry allegation was a vague, omnibus charge aimed at implicating them. Independent witness statements recorded in the case diary indicated that the husband of the deceased, Yashwant Kumar, had subjected her to mental and physical torture, suggesting his primary involvement. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, asserting the petitioners’ active participation, while the petitioners’ counsel highlighted their clean antecedents and lack of direct evidence. Considering the general nature of the dowry allegation, the specific testimony against the husband, and the petitioners’ familial relationship, the court ordered their release on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 each and two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners can be held liable under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and Sections 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act for the alleged dowry death.
- Whether the evidence sufficiently links the petitioners to the offence to deny bail.
- Whether bail may be granted in view of the independent witness testimony implicating the husband of the deceased.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Settlement Scheme — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B
Subjects
- dowry death
- IPC 304B
- IPC 201
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- bail
- in‑law liability
- independent witness testimony
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 69345 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2024 Thana- SHAHKUND District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Sarita Devi Wife of Shashikant Nirala @ Shashi Kapoor Mahto, R/o village
- Belthu, P.S.- Shahkund, Dist.- Bhagalpur.
2. Rangila Kumar @ Rangila Mahto Son of Shashikant Nirala @ Shashi
Kapoor Mahto R/o village - Belthu, P.S.- Shahkund, Dist.- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Davendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the State.
2. The accused/petitioners apprehending their arrest in
connection with Shahkund P.S. Case No. 123 of 2024 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioners including other
named co-accused persons is to cause death of sister of the
informant alongwith other co-accused persons due to non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry, as raised for cash of Rs. 2 lacs.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners being mother-in-law
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 69345 of 2025(5) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
and brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased having no connection
with daily and domestic affairs of the deceased sister of the
informant and her husband. It is submitted that much prior to the
occurrence the petitioner being mother-in-law and brother-in-law
(devar) were living separately with the family of deceased and her
husband and, moreover the allegation qua demanding dowry is
appearing very much general and omnibus in nature just to
implicate the petitioners out of relations, as they are the mother
and brother of the husband of deceased sister of the informant.
5. Arguing further, learned counsel for the petitioners
drawn attention to this Court towards paragraph nos. 56 and 57 of
the case diary, where the statement of independent witnesses
appears recorded, stating that it was the husband of deceased,
namely, Yashwant Kumar who committed mental and physical
torture upon her. The allegation of physical assault is also available
specifically available against the husband of the deceased. It is
submitted that both petitioners are of clean antecedents.
6. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail
submitted that petitioners alleged to be involved actively in the
occurrence.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact as petitioners are in-laws, facing general and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 69345 of 2025(5) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
omnibus allegation qua demand of dowry, coupled with the fact
that independent witnesses during course of investigation support
specific involvement of the husband of deceased only, accordingly,
above-named both petitioners, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned trial Court, within a period of four
weeks of the order, are directed to be released on bail furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
A.C.J.M.-II, Bhagalpur/concerned Court, where the case is
pending in connection with Shahkund P.S. Case No. 123 of 2024
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U T
Checking your session…