Supreme Court declines pre-arrest bail to main accused, the husband of the deceased, grants bail on parity to brother-in-law, sister-in-law because father-in-law, mother-in-law were granted relief

In Devlal Sahani & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices  Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed a 8-page long order dated October 1, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"....we are of the opinion that the case of Devlal Sahani (petitioner No.1–brother-in-law of the deceased) and Anandi Devi (petitioner No.3–sister-in-law of the deceased) is, in no manner, distinguishable from that of Jaga Sahani and Shri Devi (father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased), who have been extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail by this Court. Hence, Devlal Sahani and Anandi Devi (petitioner Nos.1 and 3) deserve the indulgence of pre-arrest bail on parity. However, Prince Sahani (petitioner No.2), being the husband of the deceased Rupkali Devi, was alleged to be the main offender in the FIR. Otherwise also, the responsibility of the husband to ensure the safety and security of his wife is more onerous. Hence, we are inclined to extend the indulgence of pre-arrest bail to Devlal Sahani and Anandi Devi (petitioner Nos.1 and 3), whereas the prayer for pre-arrest bail made by Prince Sahani (petitioner No.2) stands rejected. Prince Sahani (petitioner No.2) shall surrender before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today. Before parting, we would like to observe that the investigation seems to have been misdirected in this case by the post-mortem findings referred to supra. Therefore, we hereby direct that the Superintendent of AIIMS, Patna, shall constitute a Medical Board which shall examine the post-mortem report and the antecedent circumstances and give its opinion regarding the cause of death of Rupkali Devi. The opinion of the Medical Board shall be forwarded to the trial Court, and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded to the High Court of Judicature at Patna for necessary follow up action. In case the Medical Board is of the opinion that the cause of death of Rupkali Devi was homicidal, necessary amendment in the charges would follow. We make it clear that the trial of the case shall not be prejudiced by the observations made hereinabove. The special leave petition is disposed of in these terms." 

The petitioners had approached the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.343 of 2023 lodged at Chiraiya P.S., District East Champaran, Bihar, for the offences punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The facts of the case is that the deceased Rupkali Devi was married to Lakshmi Sahani, s/o Jaga Sahani in the year 2018. From their wedlock, a son was born. In the year 2019, Lakshmi Sahani passed away because of illness. Following the death of Lakshmi Sahani, the families, after mutual discussion, agreed that Rupkali Devi should be married to Prince Sahani (petitioner No.2), the younger brother of Lakshmi Sahani. Accordingly, both were married in the year 2020 and a son named ‘Master V’ was born from their wedlock. It is alleged that Rupkali Devi was continuously harassed and humiliated on account of demand of dowry and, as a culmination to the said cruel conduct, she was done to death in the matrimonial home on 16th July, 2023. Shri Harendra Sahani, father of the deceased Rupkali Devi, lodged an FIR at P.S. Chiraiya, District East Champaran, on 16th July, 2023 itself, arraigning her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (petitioner No.1), brother-in-law’s wife (petitioner No.3) and the husband Prince Sahani (petitioner No.2) as accused in the case. The dead body of Rupkali Devi was subjected to post-mortem, and a pertinent finding was recorded by the Medical Jurist in the post-mortem report, which requires special emphasis and is noted hereinbelow:-
“On External Examination – Ligature mark found in the upper part of the neck which is wider in left side extending from left angle of mandible to right up to posterior part of the right pinna having size-7" × 1" which is prominent in left side progressively diffusing in right side. Abrasion on the both side of the shoulder of size-2" × 2". 
On Internal Examination –Head-Meninges and brain tissue congested and intact.
Neck – Subcutaneous Haemorrhage found underlying the ligature mark mentioned above. Trachea congested. Thyroid xxx(illegible) cricoid cartilage intact. …. In my opinion, the cause of death is Asphyxia due to hanging.
Caused by – Ligature material. Time elapsed since death within 18 hrs to 36 hrs from the time of P.M. Examination.”
Apparently, thus, the position of the muscles underneath the ligature mark was found with subcutaneous haemorrhage and the trachea was congested.
As per medical jurisprudence by Modi, in cases of death by asphyxia, where subcutaneous haemorrhage is found in the muscles underlying the ligature mark, the same would be suggestive of manual strangulation rather than hanging. In sheer ignorance of the symptoms underneath the ligature mark, the medical jurists expressed an opinion that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging.

During the course of investigation, the father-in-law of the deceased, Jaga Sahani, and the mother-in-law of the deceased, Shri Devi, were granted pre-arrest bail by the Supreme Court vide order dated October 14, 2024 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9716 of 2024. The police, after investigation, filed a partial chargesheet only against the father-in-law of the deceased, Jaga Sahani, and the mother-in-law of the deceased, Shri Devi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The jurisdictional Magistrate, vide order dated November 18, 2025 proceeded to take cognizance and directed summoning of Devlal Sahani, Anandi Devi and Prince Sahani, i.e., the petitioners herein. The petitioners herein, approached Patna High Court apprehending their arrest in connection with the FIR. Such application preferred by the petitioners was rejected by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh, the Single Judge vide order dated August 6, 2026 whereupon the petitioners approached the Supreme court by way of the special leave petition. 

Earlier, in Devlal Sahani & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Singh had passed a 2-page long order dated August 6, 2026, wherein, he concluded:" 4. Considering the nature of accusation, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioners is rejected." The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehend their arrest in Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 343/2023, registered for offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per F.I.R., the daughter of informant was married with co-accused Laxmi Sahani in the year 2018 and from the wedlock, one male child was born and thereafter, due to illness, Laxmi Sahani died in the year 2019. It is alleged that after death of Laxmi Sahani, daughter of informant was married with younger brother of Laxmi Sahani namely Princi Sahani (petitioner no. 2) and from the wedlock, one male child was also born, but thereafter, due to some family feud, it is alleged that all the named accused persons including these petitioners committed torture & cruelty with daughter of informant and ultimately, committed her murder by pressing her neck. Petitioner no.1 is elder brother-in-law (tsB) and petitioner no. 3 is sister-in-law (tsBkuh), whereas petitioner no. 2 is husband of the deceased.

Supreme Court requests Justice Purnendu Singh to expedite hearing of bail cancellation application of Harsh Narayan Jha, a resident of Benipati, Madhubani in a murder case

In Harsh Narayan Jha vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 2-page long order dated October 1, 2026, wherein, it refused to interfere with the impugned orders passed by Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna High Court and the dismissed the Special Leave Petition with the observation "However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we request the High Court to expedite the hearing of the application being Criminal Miscellaneous No.19997/2026."

In Harsh Narayan Jha vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna High Court passed a 4-page long order dated May 8, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the specific allegation of committing assault resulting in death is primarily attributed against co-accused Sonu Jha. It further appears that while passing order in Cr. Misc. No. 2918 of 2025, this Court had taken into consideration the period of custody of Opposite Party No. 2, as well as, the nature of allegations while enlarging him on bail. However, serious allegations have now been raised regarding suppression of criminal antecedents and threat perception to the petitioner, who is the father of the deceased. In such circumstances, this Court deems it proper to direct the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani to furnish a detailed report, as to whether, after release on bail, Opposite Party No. 2 has committed any other offence and also to provide details of all criminal cases in which Opposite Party No. 2 has been made accused along with the final outcome/status of such cases. The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani shall also verify the allegation made on behalf of the petitioner regarding threat perception and, if found true, shall ensure adequate protection to the petitioner and his family members. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani is directed to file an affidavit/report before the learned District Court in respect of the aforesaid information. The learned District Court shall also submit a report explaining as to why the trial is still at a very initial stage. 6. Re-notify on 19.06.2026 among the top ten cases."The Opposite Party No. 2 is Mohd. Javed @ Barababoo. 

The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the application was filed under section 483(3) of the BNSS for cancellation of bail granted to Opposite Party No. 2 in connection with Benipatti P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to the brutal murder of the petitioner’s son, namely Munna Jha. He submitted that the petitioner’s son was taken away by the accused persons and thereafter brutally assaulted and murdered in furtherance of their common intention, thereafter his body was thrown beneath the Bachhraha river bridge with an intention to conceal the offence. It was submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 is specifically named in the F.I.R. with attributed overt acts and the postmortem report corroborates the prosecution case by disclosing multiple ante-mortem injuries caused by hard and blunt substance resulting in haemorrhage and shock. He also submitted that while granting bail, the Sessions Judge erroneously recorded that Opposite Party No. 2 was not named in the F.I.R., though a bare perusal thereof would demonstrate otherwise, and such factual misstatement materially affected the exercise of judicial discretion while granting bail. The counsel further submitted that despite the specific direction issued by the High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 2918 of 2025 for  verification of criminal antecedents, the trial court failed to properly consider the antecedents of Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 2 is a habitual offender having involvement in several serious criminal cases including robbery, illegal possession of arms and excise offences, and at least four criminal cases pending against him were deliberately concealed while seeking bail. On these grounds, counsel submitted that the impugned order granting bail is fit to be set aside and the bail granted to Opposite Party No. 2 be cancelled. 

On June 19, 2026, Justice Singh passed a 2-page long order, wherein, he directed the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit within a period of two weeks, annexing all relevant materials and documents evidencing the steps taken by the informant (petitioner) in support of his prayer for cancellation of bail granted to Mohd. Javed @ Barababoo, the Opposite Party No. 2. The petitioner was also directed to submit a fresh representation before the Superintendent of Police and the concerned SHO, with a copy duly forwarded to the Director General of Police, Bihar, so that appropriate action may be taken after verification of the allegations made in such representation. The order was passed upon hearing the informant/petitioner's counsel informed the High Court that the petitioner was being subjected to threats and that such conduct constitutes sufficient ground for seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the Opposite Party No. 2. It was also submitted that immediately after receiving such threats, the petitioner had informed the Superintendent of Police, as well as, the concerned SHO that, after being enlarged on bail by the High Court, the miscreants are bent upon to kill the petitioner.

Justice Singh's 1-page long order dated July 31, 2026 recorded that the petitioner's counsel informed the High Court that a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) has been filed before the Supreme Court and it was registered under Diary No. 42030 of 2026 dated July 16, 2026 and it was expected that the same will be notified soon. The order reads:"2. Considering the aforesaid information brought on record on behalf of the petitioner, let this matter be listed after final adjudication of the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court."