Patna High Court
Poonam DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Poonam Devi, the mother‑in‑law of a pregnant woman who died allegedly due to poisoning, was arrested in connection with a case registered under IPC sections 304B, 328, 120B and 34. The prosecution alleged that the deceased's in‑laws demanded money and subsequently administered poison, leading to her death. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR was an afterthought, that there was no specific allegation of an overt act against the petitioner, and highlighted her clean antecedents and the fact that she had been in custody since 23‑08‑2025. The State opposed bail, contending the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the circumstances, granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding attendance, verification of antecedents, and possible cancellation for future similar offences.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving alleged dowry death and poisoning under IPC sections 304B, 328, 120B and 34.
- Whether the FIR contains a specific allegation of an overt act against the petitioner sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedents and period of custody justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 304B, 328, 34
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- poisoning
- IPC
- 304B
- 328
- 120B
- 34
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84608 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2021 Thana- KORANSARAI District- Buxar
======================================================
Poonam Devi Wife of Manoj Singh Resident of Village - Basgatiya, P.S. -
Karansarai, District - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kameshwar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 05-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in
connection with Koransarai P.S. Case No. 138 of 2021
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B),
328, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that her daughter was married to one Rajkumar on
22.05.2020 and that after the marriage, her father-in-law and
mother-in-law were regularly demanding money. It is alleged
that the informant’s daughter was eight months pregnant and
that the accused persons administered poison to her, as a result
of which she died. It is further alleged that the informant and her
family members were not informed by the in-laws of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84608 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
2/4
deceased and that they came to know about the incident through
other persons. Thereafter, upon seeing the dead body of her
daughter, the informant lost consciousness and subsequently the
F.I.R. was lodged.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the present F.I.R. is an afterthought. It is contended that the
family members of the deceased were duly informed and that
they had accompanied the victim for treatment, as she was eight
months pregnant and had developed certain complications. The
learned counsel further draws attention to the statement of the
doctor before whom the deceased was taken for treatment,
wherein it has been recorded in paragraph no. 14 of the case
diary that the deceased was brought in a critical condition and
was referred to Buxar for better treatment. It is further submitted
that at the relevant time the informant and other family members
were present. It is also submitted that even if the allegations
made in the F.I.R. are taken at their face value, there is no
specific allegation of overt act against the petitioner, who
happens to be the mother-in-law of the deceased. Lastly, the
learned counsel submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents
and has been in custody since 23.08.2025.
5. The learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84608 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
3/4
prayer for bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and
circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection Koransarai P.S. Case No.
138 of 2021, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
close relative and the other shall be local resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner
will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to
move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found
that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the
court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84608 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
4/4
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the
above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in
the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U T
Checking your session…