Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Lal Muni Devi vs State Of Bihar on 25 March, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL/EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1626/2026
(@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4402/2026)
LAL MUNI DEVI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.) NO.4610/2026
O R D E R
1. Exemption Applications are allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal is at the instance of the original complainant
(mother of the deceased), seeking to challenge the legality and
validity of the Order passed by the High Court dated 16-1-2026,
releasing the Respondent No.2 – original accused (husband of the
deceased), on bail in connection with the First Information Report
dated 1-9-2024 registered with the Gopalpur Police station, State
of Bihar for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 80 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS,2023)
Signature Not Verified
respectively.
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.03.26
12:21:55 IST
Reason:
4. It appears from the materials on record that the deceased was
married to the accused past 1½ years. On 1-9-2024, the deceased was
1
found dead at her matrimonial home in suspicious circumstances with
external and internal injuries all over her body. The mother of the
deceased lodged an FIR on the very same day and date. The FIR reads
thus:
“I hereby state that I, Lai Muni Devi, wife of Budhan Prasad
Sahu, village Gobar Sahi. Prasann Nagar, Police Station Sadar,
District Muzaffarpur. The marriage of my daughter Harshika took
place on 26 May 2023 with Vikas Kumar, son of Ramji Prasad Gupta
Sahu, village- Gobar Sahl, Prasann Nagar, Police Station Sadar.
District Muzaffarpur, present address: Jaganpura (Chhatrapati
Shivajl Apartment), Police Station Gopalpur, District Patna.
They were given 20 lakh rupees and gold and silver worth
approximately 6 lakh rupees. They also provided a bed and
bed-sheet and many other Items. Vikas began dating another woman
just six months after the wedding. This led to a rift between
the two, with VIkas’s mother, Meera Devi, and husband, Ramji
Prasad Gupta, both demanding a Bullet and a new model
refrigerator. Vikas was demanding a Wheeler for his business. I
told them that I still had three daughters to marry off, and my
husband was retired. Therefore, I couldn’t afford to give them
so much. Then they began harassing my daughter, and Vikas
repeatedly threatened me to take my daughter away or he would
kill her. In this way, he began harassing my daughter further,
and this morning, on 01.09. 2024, Vikas called me and told me
that my daughter had died. I strongly suspect that Vikas
murdered my daughter.
Therefore, it is requested to you that after investigating the
above matter, legal action should be taken and punishment should
also be given.”
5. Upon registration of the FIR, the investigation was
undertaken. The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was
conducted at the Nalanda Medical College, Patna. In the post-mortem
report, the following injuries have been noted:-
(i) A lacerated wound of 6×4 cm, bone deep, over the
right frontal region of the skull.
(ii) Fracture of the frontal bone of the skull with
lacerated brain matter.
(iii) Ruptured sternum and ruptured heart
(iv) Fracture of the pelvic bone.
(v) Multiple abrasions on the chest, abdomen, and hip”.
2
6. The cause of death assigned in the post-mortem report is
hemorrhage and shock due to head injury.
7. The case at hand is one of dowry death. Upon filing of the
charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions,
which culminated as the Sessions Case Number.1800/2025 pending in
the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Respondent No.2 came to be arrested in connection with the
alleged crime. First in point of time, the Respondent No.2 prayed
for bail before the Sessions Court. Since the Sessions Court
declined to grant him bail, the accused went before the High Court.
The High Court also declined to grant bail vide Order dated 16-5-
2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.24229 of 2025.
The order reads thus:-
“1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Dr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the
Informant and Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem, @S. Azeem, learned APP
for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who Is in custody since
02.09.2024, in connection with Gopaipur P.S. Case No. 365
of 2024, F.I.R. dated 0109.2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Section 80 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
and later on charge-sheet was submitted under Sections
80/103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is of committing
torture and caused death due to non-fulfillment of demand
of dowry.
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
the petitioner is husband of the deceased. In fact, the
deceased has committed suicide herself and petitioner has
no role in the present occurrence and informant is not an
eye witness of the alleged occurrence.
5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned APR
for the State, on the other hand, on the basis of material
available on record and case diary, vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it has
come during investigation before the death of the deceased3
and all the circumstantial evidences suggest that the
petitioner has committed the murder of the deceased and she
has been died within one and half years of the marriage and
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution in
paragraph nos. 9, 10, 33 and 34 of the case diary.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail
in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 365 of 2024
pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Patna.
7. Prayer is refused.”
9. Within seven months from the date the High Court rejected the
bail application of the accused, a fresh bail application came to
be filed before the High Court and the High Court passed the
impugned order releasing the accused on bail. The impugned order
reads thus:-
“1. Heard Mr. Dhirdyuti Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Dr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the
informant and Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 02.09.2024
in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 365 of 2024,
F.I.R. dated 01.09.2024 for the offences punishable under
Section 80 of the BNS, 2023 but later on Section 103(1) was
also added.
3. Earlier the regular bail application of the petitioner
was rejected vide order dated 16.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 24229 of 2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has dean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2024 and the trial is
not in progress and the petitioner has been made accused
merely on the ground that he is husband of the deceased. In
fact, the deceased had committed suicide herself and the
petitioner has no role at all in the present occurrence.
Apart from the aforesaid, the Informant is not the eye
witness of the alleged occurrence.
5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it has
come during investigation that all the evidence shows that
the petitioner has committed the murder- of the deceased and
she died within one and a half years of marriage.
4
6. Vide order dated 22.12.2025 a report was called with
regard to the stage of trial. Report of the learned trial
court dated 02.01.2026 reveals that the charge has been
framed against the petitioner on 25.09.2025. There are
altogether 8 witnesses in the charge sheet where 5 witnesses
are private and 3 are public witnesses. As per the report,
none of the witnesses have been examined as yet.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the informant inform this Court that on
13.01.2026 one of the witness, namely, Suman Kumari who is
sister of the deceased has been examined by the trial court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view
of the report of the learned trial court, the trial is not
likely to be concluded in the near future and the petitioner
is in custody since 02.09.2024.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, report
of the learned trial court as well as the period of custody,
let the petitioner, above named, be released on ball on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-ll, Patna In connection
with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 365 of 2024, subject to 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 his absence on two consecutive dates without
sufficient reason, his 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 his 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.”
10. The mother, i.e. the de-facto complainant, being dissatisfied
with the Order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on
bail, is here before us with the present appeal.
5
11. We heard Mr. Rajnish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant(de-facto complainant), Mr. Samir Ali Khan, the
learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar and Mr. Santosh
Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2
– the original accused.
12. The impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the
accused on bail is wholly unsustainable. In a very serious crime
like dowry death, the High Court should have been very careful in
exercising its discretion. The High Court in its impugned Order has
not discussed anything. All that weighed with the High Court was
that the accused was in judicial custody and only two witnesses had
been examined till the date the High Court passed the impugned
order.
13. The High Court lost sight of many important aspects of the
matter, more particularly the post-mortem report indicating number
of injuries on the body of the deceased, and the presumption of
commission of offence as provided under Section 114 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
14. In a very recent pronouncement by this Court, a deep concern
was expressed over the seemingly mechanical approach being adopted
by the High Courts in granting bail in cases of dowry deaths. This
Court in “Shabeen Ahmed vs State of Uttar Peradesh & Anr.” Pradesh
and another (Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2025 arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 15156 of 2024 and allied
appeals observed in Para 15 as under:
“15. We also find it necessary to express our concern
over the seemingly mechanical approach adopted by the High
Court in granting bail to the Respondent accused. While the
Court did note the absence of prior criminal records, it6
failed to fully consider the stark realities of the
allegations. It is unfortunate that in today’s society, dowry
deaths remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the
courts are duty bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the
circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases. The
social message emanating from judicial orders in such cases
cannot be overstated: when a young bride dies under
suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage,
the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and
seriousness. A superficial application of bail parameters not
only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also
risks weakening public faith in the judiciary’s resolve to
combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception
of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that
courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that
continues to claim numerous innocent lives. These
observations regarding grant of bail in grievous crimes were
thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem 2 in
the following paras:
“ 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be
granted in a matter involving a serious criminal
offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like
the nature of the accusations made against the accused,
the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been
committed, the gravity of the offence, the role
attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of
the accused, the probability of tampering of the
witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are
released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being
unavailable in the event bail is granted, the
possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading
the courts of justice and the overall desirability of
releasing the accused on bail. [Refer : Chaman Lal v.
State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC
525 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974] ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.
Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan,
(2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] ; Masroor v.
State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC
286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368] ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar
v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
765] ; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v.
State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
527] ; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil
Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425] ; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar
[Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1
SCC (Cri) 558] .]
27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted,
ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner.
However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is
always open to interference by the superior court. If
there are serious allegations against the accused, even
if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an
order can be cancelled by the same Court that has
granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior
7
court if it transpires that the courts below have
ignored the relevant material available on record or not
looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on
the society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of
M.P. [P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by
a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us
(Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations that
must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order
granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1)CrPC in
the following words : (SCC p. 224, para 24)
“24. As can be discerned from the above
decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the
court must consider whether any supervening
circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the
accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it
is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit
him to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v.
State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC
(Cri) 237] . To put it differently, in ordinary
circumstances, this Court would be loathe to
interfere with an order passed by the court
below granting bail but if such an order is
found to be illegal or perverse or premised on
material that is irrelevant, then such an order
is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by
the appellate court.”
Considerations for setting aside bail orders
28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate
court for setting aside the bail order on an
application being moved by the aggrieved party
include any supervening circumstances that may have
occurred after granting relief to the accused, the
conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on
the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting
in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being
extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt
on the part of the accused to tamper with the
evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is
only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the
court must be cautious that at the stage of granting
bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined
and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the
case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought
to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail
order should reveal the factors that have been
considered by the Court for granting relief to the
accused.””
15. Dowry deaths are indeed a profound disgrace and a major social
evil representing a severe violation of human rights and dignity.
Despite the legal prohibitions, this practice continues to result
8
in the unnatural deaths of thousands of women, often through murder
or driven to suicide because of greed-driven demands for money or
valuables from the groom’s family. Dowry deaths are a severe blot
on society.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit
that the case is one of suicide. According to the learned counsel,
the deceased was not in a stable state of mind and she is said to
have jumped from the sixth floor of a building. This may be the
defence of the accused.
17. Even suicidal deaths are punishable under Section 80 of the
BNS, 2023.
18. We are informed that the trial is in progress. On this ground
alone, the High Court should have declined bail.
19. We are of the view that the impugned Order deserves to be set
aside. The bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled and
the Respondent No.2 – accused should be directed to surrender
before the jail authorities. We order accordingly.
20. We clarify that our present observations are limited to
deciding whether the bail granted by the High Court is liable to be
cancelled. The trial court shall proceed on its own assessment of
evidence uninfluenced by any of the remarks made herein.
21. The Trial Court shall see to it that the trial is completed
within six months from today.
22. We grant one week’s time to the Respondent No.2 to surrender
before the jail authority, failing which the trial court shall
issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest.
23. The appeal stands disposed of.
24. There is a connected petition filed by the State seeking the
9
very same relief of cancellation of bail.
25. In view of the order passed in the petition filed by the de-
facto complainant, we need not pass a separate order in the
petition filed by the State.
26. The same is disposed of accordingly.
27. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
28. The Registry shall forward one copy of this order to the
Registrar General of the High Court of Patna who shall in turn
place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna.
…………………………………………J
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
…………………………………………J
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI
25TH MARCH, 2025.
10
ITEM NO.51 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4402/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-01-2026
in CRM No. 80290/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna]
LAL MUNI DEVI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. Respondent(s)
[TO BE TAKEN UP AS FIRST MATTER ON BOARD]
(IA No. 58223/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT & IA No. 58224/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 4610/2026 (II-A)
Date : 25-03-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOIFor Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR
Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Adv.
Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kanchan Kumar Jha., Adv.
Ms. Divya Negi, Adv.
For M/s.Brajesh Pandey & Associates, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR
Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RPetition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4402/2026:-
1. Exemption Applications are allowed.
11
2. Leave granted.
3. We grant one week’s time to the Respondent No.2 to surrender
before the jail authority, failing which the trial court shall
issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest.
4. The appeal stands disposed of, in terms of the signed order.
SLP(Crl) No. 4610/2026:-
1. There is a connected petition filed by the State seeking the
very same relief of cancellation of bail.
2. In view of the order passed in the petition filed by the de-
facto complainant, we need not pass a separate order in the
petition filed by the State.
3. The same is disposed of accordingly.
4. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
5. The Registry shall forward one copy of this order to the
Registrar General of the High Court of Patna who shall in turn
place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
12