IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80239 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2025 Thana- SINGHWARA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1. Vipin Sah son of Late sitaram sah Resident Of Village- Mahisodha, Ps- simri bokhara, Dist- sitmarhi 2. Priti Devi @ Priti Kumari wife of Vipin Sah Resident Of Village- Mahisodha, Ps- simri bokhara, Dist- sitmarhi ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP For the Informant : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 2 07-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 189 of 2025 instituted under Sections 80, 303(2) and 61(2) of the BNS. 3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons tortured the daughter of the informant for demand of dowry and on non-fulfillment of the same, they committed the murder of the daughter of the informant by strangulating her. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80239 of 2025(2) dt.07-01-2026 2/3 case. He further submits that petitioners are brother-in-law (nandoshi) and sister-in-law (nanad) of the deceased who were living separately from the deceased and her husband. Learned counsel submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. He submits that except suspicion, there is no material against the petitioners and the petitioners are aged about 24 and 23 years respectively. He further submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent and they undertake to cooperate in the investigation and trial. 5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail and submit that proceeding under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the petitioners and petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had filed their petition for anticipatory bail before the said proceeding before the Sessions Court and are not absconding. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 4564 of 2024) vide order dated 12.11.2024 observed that in the event of declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80239 of 2025(2) dt.07-01-2026 3/3 embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount to each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Darbhanga in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 189 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the BNSS with further condition that; (i) the petitioners shall cooperate with the further investigation and shall not temper with the evidence in any manner. AjayMishra/- (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) U T