Sushila Devi Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raghav Prasad Ms. Urmila Kumai For the Informant Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava For the State : Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 11-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, registered in connection with Jamo Bazar P.S.Case No. 141 of 2025.

¶14

As per the allegation, the accused persons killed the daughter of the informant for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and tried to cremate the body, but the police on a tip-off, swung into action and took the dead-body into their custody and sent it for post mortem.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners have

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49788 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026 2/3

¶17

submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated. They are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased having no concern with day-to-day affairs of the couple. It has further been submitted that the FIR itself shows that the allegation of demand of dowry is only against the husband, who is in custody. The petitioners reside separately from the husband of the deceased. The informant did not disclose the name of the villagers from whom he got information about the shocking incident.

¶18

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that the post mortem report and the inquest report show that the injuries suffered by the deceased are ante mortem which shows that she was brutally assaulted before her death. It is further submitted that the petitioners did not inform about the death of the deceased to the informant.

¶19

There is no allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioners, rather the allegation of demand of dowry is only against the husband Arvind Yadav, who is in custody.

¶20

Considering the above facts and circumstances, let the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within four weeks from the date of communication of

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49788 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026 3/3

¶22

this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Siwan in connection with Jamo Bazar P.S.Case No. 141 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS with further condition that the petitioners shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make themselves available before the court below physically till framing of charges.

¶23

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶24

HR/-

¶25

U T

Sushila Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila 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

Sanjiv kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Gunnu Yadav Vs The Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Shia Waqf Board

Arvind Thakur @ Aravind Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Golu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjeet Chaudhary @ Ranjeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vicky Soni @ Vicky Kumar Soni Vs The State of Bihar