Patna High Court
Ram Lakhan SadaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners—Ram Lakhan Sada, his son Surendra Sada and daughter-in-law Punita Devi—filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case concerning the death of Jhameli Sada, the brother‑in‑law of the informant. The FIR alleged that the deceased was beaten to death at his in‑laws' house and implicated the petitioners under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners argued that there was no eyewitness, that the sole injury was a single head wound, and that they, especially the 72‑year‑old father‑in‑law, could not have inflicted it; they also highlighted their clean record. The State opposed, contending that the house owner could not be absolved and that the petitioners fled the scene. The Court, after considering the allegations and the nature of the offence, declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing the petitioners to surrender and seek regular bail, and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate test for granting anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in a murder‑type offence?
- Whether the facts disclosed in the FIR and post‑mortem report justify denial of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 103
- Section 3
- post‑mortem report
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8426 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2025 Thana- ALINAGAR District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Ram Lakhan Sada, S/o Mangal Sada, R/o Village - Lilpur, P.S - Alinagar,
District - Darbhanga
2. Surendra Sada @ Surendra Saday, S/o Ram Lakhan Sada, R/o Village -
Lilpur, P.S - Alinagar, District - Darbhanga
3. Punita Devi @ Anita @ Sunita Devi, W/o Surendra Sada @ Surendra Saday,
R/o Village - Lilpur, P.S - Alinagar, District - Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 21-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Alinagar P.S. Case No. 200 of 2025, registered
for the offence(s) under Section(s) 103(1) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant filed an
FIR stating that her brother-in-law (Dewar), namely, Jhameli
Sada was married at village-Lilpur and used to stay at his
Sasural. It has been alleged that he had regular quarrel with his
wife, namely, Rubi Devi, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8426 of 2026(4) dt.21-05-2026
2/4
in-law, namely, Surendra Sada (petitioner No. 2) and the wife of
Surendra Sada, namely, Punita Devi (petitioner No. 3). It has
further been alleged that the informant’s younger brother-in-law
(Dewar) called her and informed that his brother namely,
Jhameli Sada has been beaten to death by his in-laws. The
informant reached the place of occurrence and found the dead-
body of her brother-in-law (Dewar), namely, Jhameli Sada.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in
this case. It has been submitted that it is an admitted fact that
there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. It has further
been submitted that petitioner No. 1 is the old father-in-law of
the deceased, whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are brother-in-law
and sister-in-law of deceased respectively. It has next been
submitted that the present FIR has been lodged on the next day
of the occurrence by the informant as an afterthought and all the
family members of the wife of the deceased have been
implicated in this case with false and fabricated allegations. It
has also been submitted that the cause of death of the deceased
was not known, however, from the perusal of the post-mortem
report, it is evident that there was one injury found on the head
of the deceased, which is said to have been caused by hard and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8426 of 2026(4) dt.21-05-2026
3/4
blunt force. It has, thus, been submitted that petitioner No. 1
being an old person of 72 years, cannot be attributed with the
charge of assault and petitioner No. 3, who happens to be the
sister-in-law (Dewrani) of the deceased and wife of petitioner
No. 2 also, cannot be said to have assaulted the deceased. It is
an admitted case that there was only a single injury on the head
of the deceased and the mother-in-law and the wife of the
deceased have already been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide composite order dated 06.04.2026
passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 9890 of 2026 and 10149 of 2026. It
has lastly been submitted that the petitioners have clean
antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners and has submitted that the brother-in-law (Dewar) of
the informant died at his Sasural under mysterious
circumstances and he had received one injury on his head,
which was the root cause of his death and, therefore, petitioner
No. 1, being the owner of the said house, cannot be absolved of
the responsibility of the death of his son-in-law. It has further
been submitted that the petitioners were not apprehended at the
place of occurrence and the fact that only the wife of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8426 of 2026(4) dt.21-05-2026
4/4
deceased, namely, Rubi Devi was found to be alone at the
house, goes on to show that the rest of the petitioners fled away
from the place of occurrence.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and taking into account the nature of allegations
levelled against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to
grant them the liberty of anticipatory bail.
7. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is,
accordingly, rejected with a liberty to them to surrender before
the concerned Court/successor Court where the case is pending
and seek regular bail, which shall be considered on its own
merits, without being prejudiced by the present order, and the
same shall be considered/disposed of preferably on the same
day, if possible.
8. The application stands dismissed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/deepak/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.