Patna High Court
Rajendra PalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law of a deceased woman, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a dowry‑death case registered under Sections 304B and 34 of the IPC. They alleged that the informant’s sister was married in 2014, faced dowry demands, was assaulted, and later died, but that the petitioners were falsely implicated. The petitioners argued they have clean antecedents and that no FIR was filed against them prior to the victim’s death, indicating lack of substantive evidence. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, and imposed conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners in a case under Sections 304B and 34 IPC.
- Whether the petitioners are likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 34
Subjects
- dowry death
- anticipatory bail
- Section 304B IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Criminal Procedure Code
- false implication
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87715 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2023 Thana- ROHTAS District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Rajendra Pal S/O Late Jimdar Pal R/O Village- Pakariya, P.S- Akorhigola,
Distt.- Rohtas.
2. Vimla Devi W/O Rajendra Pal R/O Village- Pakariya, P.S- Akorhigola,
Distt.- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renu Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that his sister was married to Vijay in the year 2014, after
marriage, the accused started demanding dowry of Rs.1.5 lacs and
for non-fulfillment of the demand, the victim was tortured as such
his sister instituted a case against her husband and others, but the
case was compromised and the victim started living with her
husband, further on 04.08.2023, the informant received an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87715 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
information that his sister was assaulted by the accused persons,
thus he came to the place of occurrence and got his sister treated at
Dehri and brought her back to her parental house for further
treatment on advise of the doctor, where his sister disclosed that
accused assaulted her for non-fulfillment of dowry demand,
further his sister died on 15.08.2023 during course of treatment.
4. Learned counsel submits that petitioners being father-
in-law and mother-in-law have been falsely implicated in the
instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal
of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that his sister was married to Vijay in the year
2014 and there was a dispute in between his sister and Vijay for
which a criminal case was instituted but then the case was
compromised. It is also submitted that informant himself alleges
that he came to know that the victim was assaulted as such he went
to the place of occurrence and brought her back to her parental
house but then no case came to be instituted in between
04.08.2023 to 15.08.2023. It is submitted that if what is being
alleged by the informant had been a true fact, in that event, the
informant or the victim would have instituted an FIR. It is also
submitted that the victim died at her parental home and the
petitioners came to be implicated with an allegation that it was on
account of assault inflicted on the victim on 04.08.2023, which led
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87715 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
to her death on 15.08.2023 at her parental home but as recorded
hereinabove, no case came to be instituted prior to the death of the
victim. It is further submitted that petitioners will not abscond
rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned trial court where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Rohtas P.S. Case
No.211/2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…