Patna High Court
Urmila DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that the allegations were vague and general, and therefore bail was warranted for the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Urmila Devi and Manoj Kumar Mahto, were accused in a complaint (CI‑1693/2016) of mental and physical cruelty under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for allegedly demanding a dowry of Rs 70,000. They contended that the allegations were vague, unsupported by an affidavit, and fell under the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing that the petitioners were already subject to proceedings under Section 82 CrPC. The High Court examined the nature of the allegations, the petitioners’ status as senior citizens and in‑laws, and the lack of specific evidence, and concluded that the case did not justify denial of bail. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of both petitioners on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 each and two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the CrPC. The order effectively disposed of the bail petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail despite the complaint under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the allegations of mental and physical cruelty are sufficiently specific to deny bail.
- Whether the proceedings under Section 82 CrPC preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2), 82
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- anticipatory bail
- Section 498A
- mental cruelty
- physical cruelty
- Criminal Procedure Code
- high court bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78530 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1693 Year-2016 Thana- SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Urmila Devi W/O Bhola Mahto Resident of Village- Mohammadpur
Madhopatti, P.S.- Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga.
2. Manoj Kumar Mahto @ Manoj Kumar S/O Bhola Mahto Resident of
Village- Mohammadpur Madhopatti, P.S.- Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Raghuvir Choudhary S/O Late Parmeshwar Choudhary R/O Mohalla- Court
Bazar, ward No. 14, Sitamarhi, P.S. and Dist.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Upendra Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Renuka Ratnakar (125)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 20-02-2026 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 Complaint Case bearing CI-
1693/2016 registered for the offences punishable
under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is to
commit mental and physical cruelty upon daughter of
the complainant due to non-fulfillment of demand of
dowry as raised for cash of Rs. 70,000/-
4. It is submitted by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners that allegation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78530 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
as raised through complaint is not legally sustainable
for the reason that same not appears supported by
affidavit in view of the legal report of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as available through Priyanka
Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2015 (6)
SCC 287]. It is submitted that allegation qua
committing physical and mental cruelty is appearing
very much general and omnibus against petitioners,
who are in-laws, having no concerned with the
daughter of complainant and her husband. It is
submitted that even during the inquiry the allegation
as to put house on fire was not believed by the court
and the cognizance was taken only for the offence
under Section 498A of the IPC and ¾ of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. It is submitted by learned counsel that
merely for the reason that the proceeding under
Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated against
petitioners, the anticipatory bail of both petitioners,
who are in-laws were rejected by the learned trial
court. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is a
senior citizen, old and sick lady, whereas petitioner no.
2 is brother-in-law and further by sending petitioners
behind bar for technical reasons would not fulfill any
purpose of justice, it is therefore, in the interest of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78530 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
justice petitioners deserve bail. In support, learned
counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble
Supreme Court as available through Asha Dubey Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 5633.
5. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and
by taking note of fact as petitioners are in-laws, who
are facing general and omnibus allegation qua
committing mental and physical cruelty and also qua
raising demand of dowry, accordingly, both above
named petitioners, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned trial Court, within a
period of four weeks of the order, is 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 Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar,
Sitamarhi/concerned Court, where the case is pending
in connection with Complaint Case bearing CI-
1693/2016 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78530 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.