The court emphasized the absence of specific allegations in the F.I.R., leading to the granting of bail to the petitioner.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Gautam, Advocate For the State : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

2 19-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

08.09.2025, in connection with Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 325 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 07.09.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 85, 3(5) of the B.N.S. , Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act and later on Section 80 of the B.N.S. was added.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that she along with others assaulted the informant’s daughter and left her in an unconscious state near her mousi’s house and later the victim died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the ground that she is sister-in-law of the deceased. From perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioner and in fact the petitioner is living separately from the deceased and her husband. He further submits that the date of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. is 31.08.2025 but the present F.I.R. was instituted on 07.09.2025 after delay of seven days without giving any explanation of delay and the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2025.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the Informant, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and she has been made accused merely on the ground that she is sister- in-law of the deceased and she is living separately from the family member of the deceased and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R., let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 325 of 2025, subject to the following conditions :- (1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed her criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)