CR. MISC./52814/2026 of Rinku Devi Vs The State of Bihar on 17 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

17-08-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 238, 61, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that his daughter was married to Suraj on 11.03.2024, after marriage, accused persons were demanding dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs, on account of non-fulfillment of the demand the victim was tortured, accordingly the informant went to the house of the accused persons to pacify the issue, but the same was to no avail, further on 15.05.2026 his daughter informed that she was being tortured for dowry, in the night, informant tried to contact the victim, but was not able to contact her, hence on 16.05.2026 informant along with others went to the house of accused Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52814 of 2026(2) dt.17-08-2026

persons and saw the door locked and villagers informed that victim was killed and her body was disposed of.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case being mother-in-law of the deceased, it is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and allegation of demand of dowry and torture as far as petitioner is concerned, the same is general and omnibus in nature, it is also submitted that whenever any dispute arises in between the husband and the wife and the occurrence of the nature as alleged takes place, the entire family members are implicated in a mechanical manner with general and omnibus allegation.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant Ms. Riya Kashyap opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that the victim died within seven years of marriage, as such, a presumption in law is against the husband and his family members, it is also submitted that no doubt allegation of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52814 of 2026(2) dt.17-08-2026

demand of dowry may be general and omnibus in nature, but then the informant alleges that dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs was being demanded, it is next submitted that had the husband of the deceased along with his family members would not have been involved in the occurrence of killing of the deceased, in that event, the body would not have been disposed of by cremating the same rather the body would have been sent for postmortem for ascertaining the cause of death, but since the body was disposed of that amply demonstrates that the death was not natural.

7. At this stage, learned APP for the State submits that investigation in the case is continuing.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration, the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9. Thus, this application stands rejected.

Nitesh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T