Patna High Court
Chandani Devi @ Chanda DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the presumption of guilt under Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act stands and the petitioners' defence appears fabricated.
Summary
Petitioners Chandani Devi and Sunny Kumar applied for anticipatory bail in a dowry‑death case registered under Sections 80/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that the informant’s daughter was killed after demanding dowry. The prosecution presented a First Information Report, post‑mortem findings of multiple abrasions, burns and bruises, and argued that the death was homicidal. The petitioners contended innocence, submitting an EEG and brain‑mapping report claiming death due to cardiac arrest and alleging the report was forged. The court examined the timeline of the forensic report, the post‑mortem, and the presumption of guilt under Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, finding the defence unconvincing and the offence serious. Consequently, the court refused anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a dowry‑death case under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the presumption of guilt under Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act applies to the accused.
- Whether the petitioners' forensic report (EEG and brain‑mapping) is credible and sufficient to defeat the presumption.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged dowry‑death offence precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 80
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 113A, 113B
Subjects
- dowry death
- anticipatory bail
- presumption of guilt
- Evidence Act
- forensic report
- forgery
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91285 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2025 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Chandani Devi @ Chanda Devi W/o Loha Singh R/o Village - Panchdamiya,
P.S - Kartahan, District - Vaishali
2. Sunny Kumar @ Summy Kumar S/o Loha Singh R/o Village -
Panchdamiya, P.S - Kartahan, District - Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar
For the State : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad
For the informant : Mr. Praveen Ranjan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
5 06-05-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned
Counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor representing the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out
of Lalganj Police Station Case No. 278 of 2025, dated
12.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 80/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Informant Report, is
that the marriage of the son of the petitioner no. 1 was
solemnized with the daughter of the informant on
02.12.2022. After the marriage, the petitioners, along with
other co-accused persons, started demanding colour
television, gold chain, cot (diwan palang), cooler, freeze
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91285 of 2025(5) dt.06-05-2026
2/5
and Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash by the informant’s daughter,
upon which the informant’s daughter used to say that
whenever her parents will have the money, they will
arrange the same. The petitioners used to threaten the
informant’s daughter that if she will not give the articles,
they will kill her. A week prior to the present occurrence,
the accused persons had administered poison to the
informant’s daughter and when the informant got this
information, he took his daughter for treatment. On
12.06.2025, at about 05:30 AM, when the informant went
to the matrimonial home of his daughter, he saw the dead
body of his daughter, having injuries on her face and body
and also found burn injuries on her dead body.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated
in this case with ulterior motive. He further submits that
the petitioner no. 1 is the mother-in-law of the deceased
and the petitioner no. 2 is the devar of the deceased. He
further submits that the informant’s daughter was under
treatment and the informant’s daughter was treated by
doctors at Dr. H. N. Ray Clinic, on 12.06.2025, in which
the EEG and Brain Mapping analysis of the informant’s
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91285 of 2025(5) dt.06-05-2026
3/5
daughter was done and during treatment, the victim died.
The EEG and brain mapping report has been annexed by
the petitioners at as Annexure P/2. He further submits
that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and in the
post-mortem examination report, the doctor has opined
that the death is due to cardiac arrest (Asyslol) with
trauma vitac organs and painful stimuli.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
and learned Counsel for the informant vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail. Learned Counsel for the
informant submits that within three years of the marriage,
the deceased was killed by the accused persons for
demand of dowry. He further submits that from perusal
of the case diary, it would be evident that the inquest of
the dead body of the deceased was done on 12.06.2025, at
09:55 AM; whereas from the EEG and Brain Mapping
analysis report of the doctors at Dr. H. N. Ray Clinic
(Annexure P/2), shows that the said test was done on
12.06.2025, at 15:33:10 (i.e., 03:33 PM), which is not
possible. The petitioners have not come to this Court with
clean hands and they have annexed a forged report to
show that the deceased died in normal circumstances. He
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91285 of 2025(5) dt.06-05-2026
4/5
further submits that from the post-mortem examination
report, conducted on the dead body of the deceased at
05:05 PM, which was brought at 03:50 PM, the doctor
has found the external injuries as follows:
“External appearance: Multiple abrasion of about 2”
x-3” x 2” x 3” over the left wrist. Multiple burn over the
left hand of about 1” x 1/2”, swelling of left thumb with
scald. Multiple Bruise over the left forearm and Arm of
1” x 1/2”.
Bruise of 1” x band over the right wrist. Burn of 1”
x 1/2” over the right thumb and dorsum of right Abrasion
of 1” x 1/2” over the nose.”
6. Learned Counsel for the informant further submits that
the post-mortem examination report corroborates the
allegation made by the informant in the First Information
Report. This is a heinous offence and the petitioners do
not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the materials on record including the case diary.
8. Within three years of the marriage, the informant’s
daughter died an unnatural death in her matrimonial
home. The nature of death is not important whether it is
homicidal, suicidal or accidental but the fact of the matter
is that deceased died an unnatural death within three years
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91285 of 2025(5) dt.06-05-2026
5/5
of her marriage. There is a presumption against the
accused persons under Section 113(A) and 113(B) of the
Evidence Act. The offence is serious in nature and the
punishment thereof is also serious. Further, the defence
taken by the petitioners, i.e. Annexure P/2, appears to be a
fake document inasmuch as the said report was prepared
on 12.06.2025, at 03:33 PM; whereas it is alleged in the
First Information Report that the deceased was found
dead in her matrimonial home in the morning of
12.06.2025 and the inquest was done by the police on the
dead body of the deceased on 12.06.2025, at 09:55 AM,
the dead body of the deceased was brought on 12.06.2025
at 03:50 PM and the post-mortem was conducted on
12.06.205 itself at 05:05 PM. Apart from this, the doctor
has found burn injury and other injuries on the dead body
of the deceased.
9. Accordingly, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail
to the petitioners.
10. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.