Rubi Devi Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajanan Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Iftekhar Mahmood ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 09-04-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP for the State.

¶14

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Telmar P.S. Case no. 53 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 80/3 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 a nd ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶15

As per allegation in the FIR, daughter of the informant was married to petitioner’s son, namely, Rahul Bind in the year 2023. After marriage, due to non-fulfillment of golden chain, her husband and in-laws used to torture her and ultimately she was done to death in her matrimonial home.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86791 of 2024(3) dt.09-04-2025 2/3

¶18

committed no offence. There is nothing in the FIR or in the case diary against this petitioner. She is mother-in-law of the deceased. No any dowry demand was made by her rather it has come in the case diary that there was cordial relationship between the deceased and the petitioner. Specific allegation of demanding dowry is against Rahul Bind. It is clear from the FIR that telephonic information regarding death of deceased was given to the informant by the petitioner side, which shows bonafide act on the part of the petitioner. In para nos. 16, 17 and 18, several witnesses have stated that there was cordial relation between the petitioner and the deceased. In para 74 of the case diary, supervising authority has also found that deceased was living happily in her matrimonial home. As per postmortem report, cause of death is due to hanging. No any external injury was found over the body of the deceased.

¶19

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of Bail.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that specific allegation of demanding dowry is against Rahul Bind and not against this petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of four

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86791 of 2024(3) dt.09-04-2025 3/3

¶22

weeks from receipt of the order and in the event of his arrest or surrender in connection with Telmar P.S. Case no. 53 of 2024, she will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Bihar Sharif, (Nalanda) subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

¶24

sushma/- U T

Rubi Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubi 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

Raju Kumar Jaiswal Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Pandit @ Ajay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Amrendra Yadav @ Amrendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nitesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shrikesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar