Patna High Court
Tara DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail as the allegations lack specific evidence of dowry demand or cruelty, failing to satisfy the presumption under Section 113‑B.
Summary
The petitioners, who are the parents‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law of a deceased woman, sought pre‑arrest bail after being implicated in a dowry‑death case registered under Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR alleged dowry‑related torture and murder, but the petitioners argued that no specific dowry demand or cruelty was alleged against them and that the informant had later compromised, stating the death was due to illness. The State opposed bail, contending the seriousness of the allegations. The Court, referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjay Ram Tamta (2025 INSC 187) and Karan Singh v. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 133), held that the presumption under Section 113‑B requires specific evidence of dowry harassment, which was absent. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to bond and surety conditions, directing the District Court to verify any pending cases against the petitioners.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners can be granted pre‑arrest/anticipatory bail in a dowry‑death case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the FIR contains specific material showing dowry demand or cruelty required to invoke the presumption under Section 113‑B of the Evidence Act.
- Effect of the informant’s compromise on the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 238, 3(5), 482(2), 80
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 113-B
Subjects
- dowry death
- anticipatory bail
- presumption under Section 113-B
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 304B equivalent
- compromise
- clean antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87405 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2025 Thana- GORIAKOTHI District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Tara Devi W/o Shivshankar Chaurasia @ Chaurasia Shivshankar R/o Village
- Kapia Hata, Dakshini Sarari, P.S - Goreyakothi, District - Siwan
2. Shivshankar Chaurasia @ Chourasiya Shivshankar S/o Late Nageshwar
Chaurasia R/o Village - Kapia Hata, Dakshini Sarari, P.S - Goreyakothi,
District - Siwan
3. Umesh Kumar Chaurasiya @ Umesh Chaurasia S/o Shivshankar Chaurasia
@ Chaurasia Shivshankar R/o Village - Kapia Hata, Dakshini Sarari, P.S -
Goreyakothi, District - Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Netan Chouhan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shantanu Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 23-04-2026 Heard Mr. Netan Chouhan, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Shantanu Kumar,
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Goreyakothi P.S. Case No. 174 of 2025, registered under
Sections 80, 238, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),
2023.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
informant alleges that his daughter, who was married to one
Awadhesh Chaurasia, was subjected to dowry-related torture by
her husband and in-laws and was ultimately killed by them,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87405 of 2025(4) dt.23-04-2026
2/4
thereafter, her dead body was cremated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners, being the parents-in-law (petitioner nos.1 and 2) and
brother-in-law (petitioner no.3) of the deceased, are innocent
and have been falsely implicated and no specific allegation of
dowry demand or cruelty has been attributed to them, the
allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The death of the
deceased occurred on 23.05.2025 and the F.I.R. was lodged on
the same day i.e. on 23.05.2025. The husband of the deceased,
who was working in Gujarat, also died on the same day after
receiving the news of her death. The informant has entered into
a compromise and has stated that the deceased was suffering
from illness and that the F.I.R. was lodged under influence. The
petitioners have clean antecedents. On these grounds, the
petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, upon perusal of the materials available
on record, it appears that the death of the deceased occurred on
23.05.2025 and the F.I.R. was lodged on the same day. It is also
brought on record that the husband of the deceased, who was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87405 of 2025(4) dt.23-04-2026
3/4
working in Gujarat, also died on the same day after receiving
the news of her death. From paragraph 23 of the case diary, it
appears that the Mukhiya and Sarpanch have supported the
version of strained matrimonial relationship between the
deceased and her husband. The petitioners, being the parents-in-
law and brother-in-law of the deceased, are not attributed with
any specific allegation of dowry demand or cruelty soon before
her death and the allegations are general and omnibus in nature.
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of State
of Uttarakhand vs. Sanjay Ram Tamta @ Sanju @ Prem
Prakash reported in 2025 INSC 187 and in case of Karan
Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 INSC 133, the
essential ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. and the
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act require
specific material showing cruelty or harassment for dowry soon
before death, which prima facie does not appear against the
petitioners. It is also brought on record that the informant has
entered into compromise and stated that the deceased was
suffering from illness and the F.I.R. was lodged under an
influence. Considering the clean antecedents of the petitioners
and the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the
opinion that the petitioners have, prima facie, made out a case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87405 of 2025(4) dt.23-04-2026
4/4
for grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. The learned District Court is directed to release the
petitioners on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is pending
in connection with Goreyakothi P.S. Case No. 174 of 2025,
subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the B.N.S.S.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioners, as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioners, as what has been stated in
paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…