Patna High Court
CR. MISC./31773/2026 of Meenu Devi Vs The State of Bihar on 9 July 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31773 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-786 Year-2025 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== 1. Meenu Devi W/o Nageshwar Mahto R/o Village - Jaspur, P.S - Fatehpur, District - Gaya 2. Sudama
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31773 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-786 Year-2025 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
1.
Meenu Devi W/o Nageshwar Mahto R/o Village - Jaspur, P.S - Fatehpur, District - Gaya
2.
Sudama Mahto @ Sudama Kumar S/o Nageshwar Mahto R/o Village - Jaspur, P.S - Fatehpur, District - Gaya
3.
Usha Devi W/o Sunil Mahto R/o Village - Jaspur, P.S - Fatehpur, District - Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Sheo Nandan Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Prem Kumar Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
09-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner are apprehending their arrest in connection with Fathepur P.S. Case No. 786 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant namely Purnima Devi gave an application before the officer-in- charge Fatehpur, P.S. therein that her daughter namely Puja Devi marriage was solemnized with Sudhir Mahto in year 2017 as per Hindu Rituals after marriage her daughter the wedlock born two sons with Sudhir Mahto. But sometimes after marriage daughter Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31773 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
of informant tortured by her matrimonial family 1. Sudhir Mahto (husband), 2. Nageshwar Mahto (father in law) 3. Meenu Devi (mother-in-law) 4. Sunil Mahto (brother in law) 5 wife of Sunil Mahto (sister-in-law) and 6. Sudama Mahto (brother in law) . On 03.12.2025 abovementioned matrimonial family have also assault and her daughter 10:30 AM call to the informant by mobile no. 9798329559 send the claim message to the informant and on 04.12.2025 at about 2 PM co-accused with petitioners assault to the daughter of informant which she has died and then without information to the informant dead body was cremated which information got by the informant and gave an application before the police.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR Learned counsel for the petitioners submits petitioners are in- laws of the deceased. It is next submitted that petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law, petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law and petitioner no. 3 is sister-in-law (gotni) of the deceased.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31773 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
State has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail of the petitioners and submits that from perusal of the FIR it appears that petitioners are named in the FIR and they have killed the daughter of the informant and after the incident they have disposed of the body of the deceased without informing the family members of the informant.
6. Considering the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R and the fact that petitioners are named in the FIR and they have disposed of the dead body of the deceased without informing the family members of the informant, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with Fathepur P.S. Case No. 786 of 2025 pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Gaya ji.
Gaurav Sinha/- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U T