Patna High Court
Pratima DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioners subject to a bond of ₹30,000 each and compliance with conditions under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
The petitioners, Pratima Devi and Manoj Paswan, sought bail in a case (PS Mokama Case No. 288 of 2025) alleging offences under sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to the death of their daughter‑in‑law, who allegedly died by suicide after alleged dowry harassment. The petitioners argued they were innocent, that the marriage was a love marriage opposed by the deceased’s family, and that the post‑mortem report showed death due to a spinal injury, not a homicide. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioners’ prior criminal records, including cases under the POCSO Act. The court considered earlier orders granting anticipatory bail to the deceased’s husband and the circumstances of the suicide, and concluded that bail should be granted subject to a bond of ₹30,000 each and compliance with conditions under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The bail bonds were conditioned on proof that the petitioners were not absconding in other pending cases.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the alleged dowry‑related harassment and the deceased’s suicide constitute an offence warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioners’ prior criminal cases, including under the POCSO Act, preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the post‑mortem findings indicating spinal cord injury affect the nature of the charge.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 2(1)(d), 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 80
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- suicide
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
- POCSO Act
- post‑mortem report
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80294 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2025 Thana- MOKAMAH District- Patna
======================================================
1. Pratima Devi W/o Manoj Paswan Resident of ward No 11, of Village- Mor
Paschhim, PS- Mokama, Distt.- Patna
2. Manoj Paswan S/o Late Gaya Paswan Resident of ward No 11, of Village-
Mor Paschhim, PS- Mokama, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Pushkar, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection
with Mokama P.S. Case No. 288 of 2025 lodged on 08.07.2025,
for the offences punishable under sections 80, 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution, the F.I.R. has been lodged
against three named persons, including the present petitioners. It
is alleged that the death of the informant’s daughter was caused
due to torture and demand of dowry, and that she subsequently
consumed poison at the instance of her in-laws.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80294 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
2/5
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. It is
further submitted that the petitioners are the mother-in-law and
father-in-law of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that the
marriage between the deceased and the son of the petitioners
was solemnized as a love marriage against the wishes of the
deceased’s family members.
5. It is further submitted that two orders, which are
highly relevant to the present case, have been annexed. The first
is the order passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction
Case No. 731 of 2023 dated 06.10.2023, which was filed by the
deceased seeking protection for her husband and her husband’s
family from her own family. In the earlier case, the husband was
granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 10.01.2025 passed in
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 62106 of 2024. Learned counsel
further submits that, due to fear of the deceased’s family, the son
of the petitioners fled from the village and started living outside
the State. However, after being granted bail, he returned,
whereafter the alleged harassment resumed. In this regard,
Information Petition (Case) No. 207 of 2025 was filed, which
has been annexed as Annexure P-4 to the present application.
6. It is further submitted that since the deceased and
her husband (the son of the petitioners) were residents of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80294 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
3/5
same village, there was constant pressure upon the deceased
from her family. She, in turn, allegedly pressured her husband to
live outside the State, which he was unwilling to do as he
intended to complete his Constable examination. Learned
counsel submits that, on the unfortunate day, due to acute
pressure from her family, the deceased committed suicide. This
is supported by the post-mortem report, which indicates that the
cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest caused by sudden
spinal cord injury at the level of C3 and C4; however, the
opinion regarding viscera has been reserved.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioners, being the
parents of the deceased’s husband and residents of the same
village as the informant, have been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is also submitted that there are criminal cases
pending against the petitioners: one case against petitioner no. 1
and five cases against petitioner no. 2; however, all such cases
are old, and the petitioners are on bail in each of them.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
bail and submits that the antecedents of the petitioners are not
clean. It is submitted that petitioner no. 1 has one criminal case,
including a case under the POCSO Act, and petitioner no. 2 has
five criminal cases, including a case under the POCSO Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80294 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
4/5
9. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the said POCSO case was instituted by the same
girl who later became the daughter-in-law of the petitioners.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case seeing
Annexure P2, the order dated 06.10.2023 passed in Criminal
Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 731 of 2023 and P4 i.e. as well as the
post-mortem which indicates cause of death was cardio-
respiratory arrest caused by sudden spinal cord injury at the
level of C3 and C4, let the above-named petitioners be released
on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Trial
Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing
bail bond of ₹30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each, as
mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-III, Barh, in connection with the
aforementioned case, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.
11. The bail bonds of both the petitioners shall be
accepted only upon production of valid proof to the satisfaction
of the Court that they are not absconding in any of the cases
mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the petition, as detailed below:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80294 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
5/5
Petitioner No. 1:
(i) Mokama P.S. Case No. 98 of 2022
Petitioner No. 2:
(i) Mokama P.S. Case No. 180 of 1997
(ii) Mokama P.S. Case No. 200 of 2000
(iii) Mokama P.S. Case No. 207 of 2002
(iv) Mokama P.S. Case No. 280 of 2018
(v) Mokama P.S. Case No. 98 of 2022
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
U T
Checking your session…