Patna High Court
Anandev Mahto @ Ananddev Mahto @ Daroga MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that the allegations against the petitioners were vague and unsupported, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered two anticipatory bail applications filed by Suraj Kumar and Sunaina Devi (and separately by Anandev Mahto and Shanti Devi) who were named in an FIR for offences under Sections 498‑A and 302 IPC relating to the alleged death of a woman in Neemchak Bathani. The petitioners argued that they were implicated only in a vague, omnibus manner because they were relatives of the second wife of the main accused and had no direct involvement. The State opposed the bail, claiming the petitioners actively participated in the crime. The Court observed that the allegations were general, the dowry‑demand motive was remote, and the petitioners had clean antecedents. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioners to furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and to surrender within four weeks, subject to Sections 438(2) CrPC and 482(2) BNSS. The order was pronounced by Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the allegations against the accused are vague and omnibus.
- Whether the petitioners' familial relationship to the second wife of the main accused justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the dowry‑demand motive alleged in the FIR is sufficient to refuse bail.
- Applicability of Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 482(2) of BNSS in granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 498-A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 498-A IPC
- Section 302 IPC
- dowry death
- general and omnibus allegation
- clean antecedent
- bail bond
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71010 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2022 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Suraj Kumar @ Surajdev Prasad S/o Late Shyamdev Mahto R/o vill - Sudhi,
P.S. - Islampur, Distt. - Nalanda
2. Sunaina Devi W/o Late Shyamdev Mahto R/o vill - Sudhi, P.S. - Islampur,
Distt. - Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Surendra Prasad S/o Krishna Mahto R/o vill - Sudhi, P.S. - Islampur, Distt. -
Nalanda
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 74719 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2022 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Anandev Mahto @ Ananddev Mahto @ Daroga Mahto S/o Late Ramsharan
Mahto R/o Village- Neemthu, P.S.- Neemchak Banthani, District- Gaya
2. Shanti Devi W/o Rahul Kumar R/o Village- Neemthu, P.S.- Neemchak
Banthani, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Surendra Prasad Son of Krishna Mahto Resident of Village - Pachlowa, P.S.
- Islampur, District - Nalanda
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 71010 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 74719 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 19-01-2026 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71010 of 2024
Heard the parties.
2. Both petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71010 of 2024(3) dt.19-01-2026
2/5
apprehending their arrest in connection with Neemchak Bathani
P.S. Case No. 142 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against petitioners is to help the main
co-accused, who is the husband of petitioner Rahul Kumar to cause
death of sister of informant (first wife) with whom he married in
the year 2010.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that both petitioners implicated with the
present case in very general and omnibus manner for the simple
reason being brother and mother of Shanti Devi second wife of
Rahul Kumar. It is pointed put that admittedly both petitioners
were living separately and out of suicide of the sister of informant
present false implication was raised. While concluding argument, it
is submitted that above named petitioners are of clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the
informant while opposing the prayer of anticipatory bail submitted
that both petitioners actively participated in the occurrence.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking
note of fact as petitioners appears to be implicated only being
relatives of second wife with very general and omnibus allegation,
accordingly both above named petitioners, in the event of their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71010 of 2024(3) dt.19-01-2026
3/5
arrest or surrender before the trial court within a period of four
weeks, are directed to be released on bail, furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 1 st Class,
Gaya/concerned Court, where the case is pending in connection
with Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 142 of 2022, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/
Section 482(2) of BNSS.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74719 of 2024
Heard the parties.
2. Both petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and are
apprehending their arrest in connection with Neemchak Bathani
P.S. Case No. 142 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against petitioners is to help the main
co-accused, who is the husband of petitioner Rahul Kumar to cause
death of sister of informant (first wife) with whom he married in
the year 2010.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that due to non-fulfillment of demand of
dowry as raised for cash of Rs. 50,000/- sister of informant was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71010 of 2024(3) dt.19-01-2026
4/5
forced to consume poision. It is submitted that marriage of
deceased sister of informant was solemnized with Rahul Kumar
son of petitioner no. 1 in the year 2010 and as there was no issue
from said marriage, under consent he solemnized second marriage
with petitioner no. 2 in the year 2013-14. They were living happily
and only in the year 2022 i.e., after 9 years when out of certain
domestic quarrel son of petitioner no. 1 was beaten petitioner no.
2, deceased wife came to save her and when she failed to
persuade Rahul Kumar she consumed celphos due to which she
died. It was stated that after her death family members of
deceased wife created ruckus and in planned and formulated
manner after about 12 years of marriage raised allegation in the
background of dowry demand which is not appears convincing.
5. Arguing further, it is submitted that petitioner no. 1 is
the father and petitioner no. 2 is second wife of petitioner with
whom he married in the year 2013 implicated without any reason.
While concluding argument, it is submitted that above named
petitioners are of clean antecedent.
6. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the
informant while opposing the prayer of anticipatory bail submitted
that both petitioners actively participated in the occurrence.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71010 of 2024(3) dt.19-01-2026
5/5
note of fact as allegation against petitioners appears raised in very
general and omnibus manner, where marriage of the husband of
deceased was solemnized with petitioner no. 2 in 2013-14 itself,
as submitted aforesaid and also demand of dowry as raised
through present FIR appears very much remote qua occurrence,
accordingly both above named petitioners, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the trial court within a period of four
weeks, are directed to be released on bail, furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 1 st Class,
Gaya/concerned Court, where the case is pending in connection
with Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 142 of 2022, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/
Section 482(2) of BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.