Patna High Court
Mamta DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court rejected the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioners, who are relatives of a deceased woman, sought anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR for a dowry death under Sections 103(1), 80, 238 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners, along with other accused, tortured the victim for dowry and caused her death after seven years of marriage. The petitioners contended they are innocent, have clean records, and were implicated merely due to familial relations. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific accusations, the gravity of the offence, and the unnatural death of the victim. Considering the seriousness of the charges and the direct nature of the allegations, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to persons accused under Sections 103(1), 80, 238 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. in a dowry death case
- Whether the gravity of the offence and specific accusations preclude the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5), 80
Subjects
- dowry death
- anticipatory bail
- B.N.S.
- Sections 103(1)
- Section 80
- Section 238
- Section 3(5)
- criminal procedure
- family relations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81010 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2025 Thana- KUNAULI District- Supaul
======================================================
1. Mamta Devi W/O Jitendra Mehta @ Jitendra Kumar Mehta @ Jitu Jitendra
Mehta Resident of Village - Kamalpur, Ward No. 01, Police Station -
Kunauli, District - Supaul.
2. Lalita Devi @ Lalwati Devi @ Lal Bati Devi @ Lalvati Devi W/O
Harkishun Mehta @ Harikishun Mehta @ Harkisun Mehta Resident of
Village - Kamalpur, Ward No. 01, Police Station - Kunauli, District - Supaul.
3. Upendra Mehta S/O Harkishun Mehta @ Harikishun Mehta @ Harkisun
Mehta Resident of Village - Kamalpur, Ward No. 01, Police Station -
Kunauli, District - Supaul.
4. Gobind Mehta @ Govind Mehta S/O Bachha Mehta @ Bachha Mehta
Resident of Village - Kamalpur, Ward No. 01, Police Station - Kunauli,
District - Supaul.
5. Renu Devi W/O Upendra Mehta Resident of Village - Kamalpur, Ward No.
01, Police Station - Kunauli, District - Supaul.
6. Jitu Jitendra Mehta @ Jitendra Kumar Mehta @ Jitendra Mehta S/O
Harikishun Mehta @ Harekishna Mehta @ Harkisun Mehta Resident of
Village - Kamalpur, Ward No. 01, Police Station - Kunauli, District - Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 80,
238 and 3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. It is a case of dowry death. As per prosecution case,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81010 of 2025(3) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
marriage of daughter of informant was solemnized with co-
accused Raju Mehta about 5 years ago as per Hindu rites and
rituals. It is alleged that after marriage, all the F.I.R. named
accused persons, including these petitioners, tortured and
harassed the victim for dowry and due to non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry, all the accused persons killed the victim.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. Petitioners have falsely been
implicated in this case merely because Petitioner Nos. 1 and 5
happen to be sister-in-law, Petitioner No. 2 happens to be
mother-in-law Petitioner Nos. 3 and 6 happen to be brother-in-
law of the deceased and Petitioner No. 4 happens to be distant
relative of husband of the deceased. Petitioners are separate in
mess and property and have got no concern with the affairs of
the deceased and her husband. Petitioners claim clean
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the
F.I.R. with specific accusation that they, along with other
accused persons, used to torture and harass the victim for dowry
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81010 of 2025(3) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
and due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, all of them
committed her murder. The deceased died unnatural death at her
matrimonial house with seven years of marriage.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence
and the fact that the deceased died unnatural death at her
matrimonial house with seven years of marriage, the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…