Patna High Court
Ramita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court allowed the petitioners’ application for anticipatory bail, subject to conditions, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Summary
The petitioners – Ramita Devi, Vishal Singh and Komal Singh – are the mother‑in‑law, brother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law of the informant, Sweta Kumari, who alleged that they tortured her, attempted to strangle her and demanded a car in violation of the Dowry Prohibition Act and several provisions of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act. The FIR was lodged 25 days after the alleged incident, and the petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. The State opposed the bail, contending the petitioners were involved in torture and an attempted rape. The Court, noting the familial relationship, the delay in filing the FIR and the petitioners’ clean antecedents, granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions including surety, personal appearance and verification of criminal antecedents. The order was made clear that its observations would not affect the trial proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC in view of the allegations of dowry harassment and other offences.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the familial relationship of the accused affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 3(5), 62, 64, 82(1), 85, 88
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- domestic violence
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 3 Dowry Prohibition Act
- bail conditions
- in‑laws
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91426 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-330 Year-2025 Thana- KALYANPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Ramita Devi wife of Ajay Kumar Singh Resident of village- Pipra Khem,
Ps- Kalyanpur, Dist- East Champaran
2. Vishal singh son of Ajay Kumar Singh Resident of village- Pipra Khem, Ps-
Kalyanpur, Dist- East Champaran
3. Komal Singh Daughter of Ajay Kumar Singh Resident of village- Pipra
Khem, Ps- Kalyanpur, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sweta Kumari Daughter of Brij Kishore Sharma Resident of village-
Shankar Saraiya Babu tola, Ps- Turkauliya, dist- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Adarsh Parashar, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate
Mr. Mayank Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Arun Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Hemant Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State
and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 330 of 2025 registered for the
offences under Sections 82(1), 85, 88, 64, 62 and 3(5) of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91426 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/5
B.N.S. and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
3. The prosecution case to the effect that the
informant has alleged that she was married to one Mritunjay
Kumar Singh and thereafter, all the named accused persons
including the petitioners started demanding a car and for which
she was tortured and abused. It is further alleged that she was
even burnt by boiling water and rice water. It has lastly been
alleged that on 30.07.2025, the accused persons tried to
strangulate her and thereafter, on the intervention of the police,
she somehow managed to escape.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioner no. 1 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is
the brother-in-law (dewar), and petitioner no. 3 is the sister-in-
law (nanad) of the informant. He further submits that admittedly
the alleged date of occurrence is stated to be 30.07.2025 while
the FIR was lodged after a delay of twenty five days on
24.08.2025 without any explanation and moreover, as per the
own averments of the informant, the police had came on
30.07.2025. It has further been submitted that on plain reading
of the FIR, it would be evident that absurd allegation had been
levelled against the petitioners. It has next been submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91426 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/5
the father-in-law had been sent to jail and he has been granted
regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
15.01.2026 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 309 of 2026. It has lastly
been submitted that the petitioners have clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as the
learned APP for the state have vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and have stated that the petitioners were all involved in
torture of the informant and one of the petitioners have tried to
commit rape upon the informant.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking
into account the fact that the petitioners are the in-laws and also
taking into account the fact that the petitioner no. 3 is the
married sister-in-law (nanad), while petitioner no. 2 happens to
be the brother-in-law (devar) with vague allegations levelled
against him, let the petitioners above named be released on
anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today,
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each 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 with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 330 of 2025 subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91426 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
4/5
of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2)
of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be
their close relative.
(ii) The petitioners 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 petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the
Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are 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 petitioners and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioners have
concealed their criminal antecedents, the court
below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond
of the 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91426 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
5/5
7. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U T
Checking your session…