Bail granted despite general allegations; need for specific evidence emphasized.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

2 27-01-2026 Heard Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

12.08.2025 in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 175 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 18.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 80 , 3(5) of the B.N.S. , 2023 and u/s 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act .

3. According to prosecution case, petitioner and other accused persons are alleged to have killed the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of one motorcycle as dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It appears from the FIR itself that the FIR has been instituted after the postmortem conducted. From a bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is no specific allegation of any assault, overt act or demand of dowry attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioner and the petitioner has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that she is mother-in-law of the deceased and the police after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and she is in custody since

12.08.2025.

5. Learned APP has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there is no specific allegation of any assault, overt act or demand of dowry rather there is general and omnibus allegation attributed against all the accused persons including the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.F.C., Danapur, Patna in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 175 of 2025, with the following conditions:

i. 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, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. 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 antecedent, 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)