Patna High Court
Suresh Sah @ Sures SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to bond and conditions, as the allegations did not amount to sufficient material to deny bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Suresh Sah and Manju Devi, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a dowry‑death case (Singhwara P.S. Case No. 189 of 2025) where they were alleged to have participated in the torture and murder of the informant's daughter. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with co‑accused, strangulated the victim for non‑payment of dowry, invoking Sections 80, 303(2) and 61(2) of the Bihar Penal Code. The petitioners contended they are the victim's in‑laws, were not present at the time of the crime, have no criminal antecedent, and that only the husband of the deceased is in custody. The State and the informant opposed anticipatory bail, arguing that a Section 82 proceeding is already pending. Relying on the Supreme Court’s observation in Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court granted bail on the condition that the petitioners cooperate with the investigation and not tamper with evidence, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the pending criminal proceedings.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioners constitute sufficient material to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2), 82
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- murder
- Section 303
- Section 80
- Section 61
- Section 82
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81078 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2025 Thana- SINGHWARA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Suresh Sah @ Sures Sah Son of Late Vindeshwar Sah Resident of Mohalla -
Bharwara, Ward No.- 1, P.S.- Singhwara, District - Darbhanga.
2. Manju Devi Wife of Suresh Saw @ Sures Sah Resident of Mohalla -
Bharwara, Ward No.- 1, P.S.- Singhwara, District - Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Uma Shankar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 189 of 2025 instituted under
Sections 80, 303(2) and 61(2) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution case, petitioners along with
other co-accused persons tortured the daughter of the informant
for demand of dowry and on non-fulfillment of the same, they
committed murder of the daughter of the informant by
strangulating her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81078 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
case. Further submission is that petitioners are father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the deceased, who are living separately from
the deceased and her husband. Petitioners were not present at
the time of alleged occurrence. There is no specific allegation
against the petitioners. The husband of the deceased is under
custody since 20.09.2025. It is submitted that except suspicion,
there is no material against the petitioners. Petitioners have no
criminal antecedent and they undertake to cooperate in the
investigation and trial.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned
A.P.P. for the State oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail and
submit that proceeding under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been
initiated against the petitioners and petitioners are not entitled
for anticipatory bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners had filed their petition for anticipatory bail before the
said proceeding before the Sessions Court and are not
absconding. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Asha Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal
Appeal No. 4564 of 2024) vide order dated 12.11.2024
observed that in the event of declaration under Section 82 of the
Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81078 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
embargo on considering the application for the grant of
anticipatory bail.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the
nature of allegation against the petitioners, in the event of arrest
or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from
today, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount to each to the satisfaction of the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Darbhanga in
connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 189 of 2025, subject
to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the BNSS with
further condition that;
(i) the petitioners shall cooperate with the further
investigation and shall not tamper with the evidence in any
manner.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…