IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76078 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA THANA District- Begusarai ====================================================== 1. Shila Devi W/o Dinesh Sah R/o Village - Dantola, Ward no. 12, P.S - Town, District - Begusarai 2. Saurav Kumar @ Golu @ Saurabh S/o Dinesh Sah R/o Village - Dantola, Ward no. 12, P.S - Town, District - Begusarai 3. Dinesh Sah S/o Late Ramchandra Sah R/o Village - Dantola, Ward no. 12, P.S - Town, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rabi Bhushan, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 04-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 34 of 2025 dated 04.08.2025 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 85, 115(2), 127(1), 352, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners and the co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the informant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and ousted her from the matrimonial home. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. The Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76078 of 2025(2) dt.04-11-2025 2/2 petitioner no. 1 is the mother-in-law, the petitioner no. 2 is the brother-in-law (devar) and the petitioner no. 3 is the father-in-law of the informant and they have no concern with the alleged offence. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. The petitioners neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the informant. The petitioner nos. 1 and 3 have one criminal antecedent whereas the petitioner no. 2 has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioners. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court concerned, Begusarai in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 34 of 2025, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 7. This application stands allowed. Gautam/- (Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U T