Patna High Court
Rajneeti Kunwar @ Lalan KunwarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Petitioner No.2 is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNS, 2023, whereas petitioner No.1 is not.
Summary
The petitioners, Rajneeti Kunwar and Babita Devi, sought anticipatory bail in a dowry‑related case (Criminal Misc. No.74341 of 2025) alleging false implication. The FIR alleged that the victim was assaulted by her husband and other family members, but the petitioners argued that the husband and sister‑in‑law were not present at the alleged scene, as shown by mobile tower data and attendance records. The State’s APP contended that the mother‑in‑law’s 112 call initiated the investigation, which led to the FIR. The Court examined the credibility of the allegations, the evidentiary gaps, and the risk of arrest. It granted anticipatory bail to petitioner No.2 (Babita Devi) subject to bail bonds and sureties, but refused the same relief to petitioner No.1 (Rajneeti Kunwar). The personal appearance of the police officials was dispensed with.
Issues considered
- Whether petitioner No.1 is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023.
- Whether petitioner No.2 is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023.
- Whether the FIR and the allegations against the petitioners are prima facie false or lack sufficient basis for arrest.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 3(5), 482(2), 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- false implication
- FIR
- mobile tower location
- Section 482
- Criminal Procedure Code
- high court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74341 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2025 Thana- MORKAHI District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Rajneeti Kunwar @ Lalan Kunwar S/o Late Bano Kunwar (In FIR 60 Years)
R/o Village - Bachauta, P.S - Morkahi, District - Khagaria
2. Babita Devi @ Vibha Devi W/o Rajneeti Kunwar @ Lalan Kunwar (In FIR
55 Years) R/o Village - Bachauta, P.S - Morkahi, District - Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Aditya Kumar S/o Late Ratan Prasad Singh R/o - Sanhauli, P.S - Chitragupt
Nagar, District - Khagaria
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate,
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, Advocate
Mr. Hafiz Shahbaz Arif, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 15-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109, 117(2), 85 and 3(5) of the BNS,
2023 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The SHO, Morkahi Police Station and the
Investigating Officer of the case, in compliance of the order
dated 17.12.2025, are present in the Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74341 of 2025(5) dt.15-01-2026
2/6
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have antecedent of two cases and the informant
alleges that his sister was married to Krishna Kumar about three
years back, out of the wedlock, a child was born, after marriage
the victim was tortured for non fulfillment of demand of dowry
of Rs. 25 Lakhs and a motorcycle, next alleges that on
12.07.2025, Krishna Kumar assaulted her by a sharp edged
weapon causing injury on neck and jaw, thereafter father-in-law
also assaulted by a sharp weapon causing injury on cheek,
further the mother-in-law, sister-in-law along with two unknown
accused assaulted causing fracture of hand and also slit the
nerve and assaulted on leg and considering her dead, the family
members threw her in a ditch, further police admitted the victim
at Kalpana Nursing Home, the nursing home informed the
informant accordingly, he came and thereafter came to know
that victim was having injury on head for which she was
operated.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case being
father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim. It is next
submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that the date of occurrence of assault is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74341 of 2025(5) dt.15-01-2026
3/6
alleged to be 12.07.2025 and the informant alleges that police
admitted the victim in the hospital on the said date itself, but
then no FIR came to be instituted. It is next submitted that the
instant FIR was instituted on 18.07.2025 by the informant and
not by the victim. It is further submitted that during the course
of investigation, it has come that on 12.07.2025 Krishna Kumar
was not present at the place of occurrence rather tower location
of his mobile was showing that he was in Patna. It is submitted
that Krishna Kumar runs a coaching institute in Patna at
Punaichak, Rajbanshi Nagar. It is further submitted that sister-
in-law of the victim is an ANM posted at PHC, Mahishi Block,
Saharsa. It is submitted that on the said date of occurrence even
the sister-in-law was not present at the place of occurrence.
6. The SHO and the Investigating Officer of the case
who are present in the Court submits that that they received
information about the occurrence as the informer called on 112.
It is submitted that the information was provided by the mother-
in-law of the victim who disclosed that petitioner no. 1 i.e. her
husband had assaulted the victim causing injury on her face. It is
next submitted that based on the said information, the police
came and recovered the victim from a place adjacent to her
house and took her to the hospital, on query of the Court that as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74341 of 2025(5) dt.15-01-2026
4/6
to why no FIR came to be instituted instantly based on the
information provided by the mother-in-law of the victim
through 112, on which it is submitted that the earlier SHO was
in contact with the family and as such they are not aware that as
to why an FIR was not instituted then, but then it is fairly
submitted that during the course of investigation, it transpired
that tower location of the husband of the victim was found on
the date of occurrence at Patna, further it is submitted that the
Investigating Officer personally had gone to Saharsa for
investigating about the role of the sister-in-law and it transpired
that even sister-in-law on the date of occurrence was not present
at the place of occurrence rather was at Saharsa and the same
was testified by her superior and the attendance register.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submits that prima facie during the
course of investigation, it transpired that husband and sister-in-
law of the victim were not even present at the place of
occurrence, but then they have been implicated in the instant
case. It is next submitted that though it is being submitted that it
was the mother-in-law of the victim who informed the police
about the occurrence, but then it is submitted that she has also
been made an accused in the instant case, it is thus submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74341 of 2025(5) dt.15-01-2026
5/6
that it appears that the entire occurrence was manipulated or the
injuries were self inflicted. It is next submitted that had the
father-in-law been involved in the occurrence whether his wife
would have called the police and informed that father-in-law
assaulted leading to injury on face. It is also submitted that after
the victim was admitted in the hospital, the doctor examined the
victim and found lacerated wound over left side of face size 5
cmx1/2 cmx1/4 cm, neck, eyelid, left and right hands and
forearm and the injury was opined to be grievous.
8. At this stage, the learned APP for the State submits
that it was mother-in-law of the victim who had called the police
and informed about the occurrence that her husband is having a
fight with the victim and he has assaulted her on her face
causing injury based on which the police came and admitted the
victim in the hospital and thereafter the family members of the
victim were informed. The learned APP next submits that it is
not in dispute that the call on 112 came from the mobile number
registered in the name of the mother-in-law of the victim, the
said submission is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners, but then the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that this amply
demonstrates that how shrewdly the mother-in-law of the victim
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74341 of 2025(5) dt.15-01-2026
6/6
has also been implicated in the instant case.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court is inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to petitioner no. 2, however, the Court is
not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to
petitioner no. 1.
10. The petitioner no. 2 above-named, in the event of
her arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court
in connection with Morkahi P.S. Case No. 109 of 2025 subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the
BNSS.
11. The personal appearance of the SHO, Morkahi Police
Station and the Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed
with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…