Pradeep Chaudhary @ Pradeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8211 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2024 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.
Pradeep Chaudhary @ Pradeep Kumar S/O Dularchand Choudhary@ Sadhu Choudhary R/O Village- Khukhari, P.S- Mahkar, Distt.- Gaya. 2.
Pushpa Devi @ Pushpa Kumari W/O Pradeep Choudhary, D/O Ram Swroop Chaudhary R/O Village- Khukhari, P.S- Mahkar, Distt.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :
Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Dowry Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and informant alleges that his daughter was married to Sudhir, further after marriage his daughter was subjected to physical and mental torture by her inlaws, who were demanding dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs, a fridge, a colour television and a golden chain, the torture continued after birth of a daughter. It is next alleged that on 29.05.2024, the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8211 of 2025(2) dt.07-03-2025 2/3 received an information about his daughter's illness through Pradeep Choudhary, the brother-in-law of Sudhir Kumar. Accordingly, the informant and his wife visited the hospital where they were informed that their daughter had already died. It is thus alleged that the informant's daughter died not because of illness, but she was killed by her in-laws.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that petitioner no. 2 is own sister of Sudhir and petitioner no. 1 is husband of petitioner no. 2. It is further submitted that Suhir has not been made an accused in the instant case. It is also submitted that had the petitioners been involved in the occurrence then they would not have allowed the family members to admit the daughter of informant in a hospital for treatment, rather would have tried to dispose of the dead body for the purposes of concealing the evidence. It is next submitted that the post-mortem of the dead body was conducted and the doctor opined that death was on account of asphyxia and shock due to hanging. It is thus submitted that it appears that the deceased committed suicide and the petitioners came to be implicated. It is further submitted that whenever any occurrence of the nature as alleged takes place, the entire family members are implicated in a mechanical manner. It is also submitted that petitioners will not abscond, rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8211 of 2025(2) dt.07-03-2025 3/3
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, where the case is pending / successor Court, in connection with Chandauti P.S. Case No. 198 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. It is made clear that if the investigating officer of the case files an application before the learned trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioners despite giving assurance to this Court are not cooperating in the investigation, in that event, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T