Dismissed¶24

Dhanmatiya Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 May 2025CR. MISC./8457/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; BNS 2023 Sections 80 and 3(5); dowry demand; daughter-in-law found hanging with dupatta; ligature mark U-shaped anterior neck; viscera sent to FSL Patna; mother-in-law accused; Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 576 of 2024, Aurangabad, Bihar; custody since 08.10.2024; charge-sheet submitted; omnibus allegation contention; trial to conclude within nine months; renewal of bail prayer; Patna High Court Criminal Miscellaneous No.8457 of 2025; Justice Khatim Reza; order dated 13-05-2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected; Trial Court directed to expedite and conclude the trial preferably within nine (09) months, failing which the petitioner may renew the bail prayer after expiry of nine months. ¶24

Dhanmatiya Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail prayer rejected; Trial Court directed to expedite and conclude the trial preferably within nine (09) months, failing which the petitioner may renew the bail prayer after expiry of nine months.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, mother-in-law of the deceased and accused under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 in Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 576 of 2024, should be granted bail.

¶14

Court's answer

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

¶24

Key takeaways

The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it at the earliest, preferably within nine (09) months from receipt or production of a copy of the order.ratio¶25
If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated nine-month period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after expiry of nine months.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8457 of 2025 (Patna High Court, Khatim Reza, J., order dated 13-05-2025) — petitioner Dhanmatiya Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased, arraigned under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 in Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 576 of 2024 (District Aurangabad) — prosecution alleges the deceased, married on 11.06.2024, was harassed and tortured for dowry and found dead hanging with a dupatta, the occurrence taking place within seven months of marriage — post-mortem reported 'Ligature mark of U shaped on anterior aspect of neck'; cause-of-death opinion preserved and viscera sent to F.S.L., Patna — counsel for petitioner urged false implication, general and omnibus allegation, custody since 08.10.2024, no criminal antecedents and submission of charge-sheet — bail prayer rejected at this stage; Trial Court directed to expedite trial and conclude it preferably within nine (09) months, failing which petitioner may renew the bail prayer after expiry of nine months.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8457 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-576 Year-2024 Thana- DAUDNAGAR District- Aurangabad

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Dhanmatiya Devi W/O Chandramal Chaudhry @ Chjandramal Chaudhary R/O Village- Sinduar Prasadi Bigha, P.S- Daudnagar, Distt.- Aurangabad (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

=================== Appearance :	... ... Opposite Party/s ===================================
For the Petitioner/s :	Mr. Santosh Chandra Bhaskar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s :	Mr. Murli Dhar, APP
For the Informant : ===================	Mr. ===================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 13-05-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned

¶13

counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

¶15

Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 576 of 2024 dated 14.09.2024, instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶16

The prosecution case, in short, is that, the daughter of informant was married to Dipak Chaudhary on 11.06.2024. Just after marriage, the daughter of informant was being harassed and tortured at the hands of her husband, mother-inlaw (petitioner) and in-laws for demand of dowry. It is further alleged that the accused persons have killed his daughter and informed him. The informant reached matrimonial house of his

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8457 of 2025(3) dt.13-05-2025 2/3

¶18

daughter and saw dead body of her daughter was hanging with dupatta .

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased (informant’s daughter). There is no specific allegation against the petitioner rather the allegation levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. It is submitted that the deceased was examined by the doctor and post-mortem report has come on record. It is next submitted that viscera was preserved and sent to F.S.L. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2024 having no criminal antecedents and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

¶20

Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has killed the daughter of the informant and informed him about her death. It is further submitted that post-mortem report clearly reveals ‘Ligature mark of U shaped on anterior aspect of neck’ on the body of the deceased. The opinion regarding cause of death of deceased is preserved and viscera has been sent to F.S.L., Patna.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8457 of 2025(3) dt.13-05-2025 3/3

¶22

The said occurrence took place within seven months from the date of marriage.

¶23

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶24

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶25

However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and take all endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest, preferably, within a period of nine (09) months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. In the event, the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after the expiry of nine months.

¶26

Sankalp/-

¶27

U T

¶28

(Khatim Reza, J)

Dhanmatiya Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanmatiya Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Awadhesh Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Brajesh Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Subhamoy Banerjee @ Subhamay Banarjee @ Budhamoy Banarjee Vs The State of Bihar

Hira Chaudhary @ Hiralal Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar