Disposed¶22

Sangita Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Jul 2026CR. MISC./29809/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory/pre-arrest bail rejected; murder allegation (daughter of informant); Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) BNS; Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 794 of 2025; East Champaran/Motihari; FIR complicity not ruled out; surrender and regular bail route; compromise/supervision report urged by counsel but disregarded; Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29809 of 2026, dt. 21-07-2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief of pre-arrest bail granted; petitioners directed to surrender before the learned District Court and seek regular bail. ¶22

Sangita Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29809 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-794 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

1. Sangita Devi W/o Awadhesh Sahani. Resident of village- Dhab Tola Ramjeeta, P.S. Harsidhi, District East Champaran, Motihari.

¶5

Awadhesh Sahani S/o Mohar Sahani Resident of village- Dhab Tola Ramjeeta, P.S. Harsidhi, District East Champaran Motihari.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhandev Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 21-07-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶13

petitioners and learned APP for the State.

¶14

The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 794 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶15

Allegation is of committing murder of the daughter of the informant.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners informs that the parties are heading to compromise. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and their complicity in the alleged occurrence of murder is not made out

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29809 of 2026(3) dt.21-07-2026 2/2

¶18

in absence of any evidence as it would appear from the content of the allegation made in the F.I.R. He also refers to supervision report in this regard. Petitioners have clean antecedent.

¶19

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶20

Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the allegation made in the F.I.R., I find that the petitioners are accused of committing an offence punishable under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. At this stage, the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out, as such, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on pre-arrest bail.

¶21

The petitioners may surrender before the learned District Court and seek regular bail.

¶22

The bail application stands disposed of.

¶23

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶24

mantreshwar/-

¶25

U T

Sangita Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita 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

Manishankar Choudhary @ Manishankar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manak Mukhiya Vs The State of Bihar

Chandra Choor Singh @ Chandir Choor Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Mohsin Zaman Khan @ Mohsin Khan Vs The State of Bihar

Ashok Kumar Yadav @ Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Raju Sah @ Raju Kumar Vs The State of Bihar