Patna High Court
Putul DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
Petitioner Putul Devi sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a murder case involving alleged dowry demands, where the informant, the deceased's sister-in-law, alleged that the petitioner participated in strangling the victim. The petitioner argued she has a clean record, the informant is not an eyewitness, and the allegations are vague and omnibus. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the BNS. The Court examined the submissions and, noting the lack of concrete evidence and the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate, granted anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order also warned that bail could be cancelled if the petitioner fails to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the BNS in view of the allegations.
- Whether the material on record is sufficient to deny bail on grounds of seriousness of the offence.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to cooperate with the investigation, justifying bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- murder
- false implication
- Section 80
- Section 3(5)
- Section 482
- Bihar
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79030 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2025 Thana- JAMOBAZAR District- Siwan
======================================================
Putul Devi W/O Ramjeet Sharma @ Ramjee Sharma Resident of Vill.-
Bhalui, P.S.- Jamo Bazar, Dist.- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Rathore @ Kundan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sharda Kumari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and
3(5) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that four years back, his sister was married to Dilip and
after marriage, the victim was being tortured for non-fulfillment
of the demand of dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and a motorcycle. It is
next alleged that on 18.06.2025, in the night, the accused
persons including the petitioner strangulated his sister to death.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant being sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79030 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
2/3
further submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the
occurrence and as far as allegation of demand of dowry and
torture is alleged, the same is general and omnibus in nature. It
is next submitted that the petitioner along with her husband
reside separately. It is also submitted that whenever any dispute
arises in between the husband and the wife and the occurrence
of the nature as alleged takes place, the entire family members
are implicated in a mechanical manner with general and
omnibus allegation. It is submitted that from perusal of the order
impugned, it would manifest that postmortem of the dead body
was carried out. It is further submitted that if the petitioner or
other family members would have been involved in the
occurrence in that event efforts would have been made to
dispose of the dead body with a view to conceal the evidence
but then the dead body was sent for postmortem for ascertaining
the cause of death. It is next submitted that petitioner will not
abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove her
innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above-named, in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79030 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
3/3
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 Jamo Bazar P.S.
Case No. 249 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. However, it is made clear that if the investigating
officer of the case files an application bringing to the notice of
the learned trial court that petitioner despite giving assurance to
this Court is not cooperating in the investigation, the learned
trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…