Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8138/2026bail rejected

Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-23Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8138 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2025 Thana- Marnga District- Purnia ====================================================== Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Yadav S/o Mukesh Yadav @ Mantu Resident of Village- Maranga, P.S.- Maranga, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Sharda Kumari, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 80 and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 29.11.2025 and the informant alleges that his daughter was married to the petitioner on 07.05.2021 and after one year of marriage, the accused persons including the petitioner started assaulting and torturing the victim for dowry. It is further alleged that the victim used to convey about the torture being meted out to her and when the informant confronted the accused persons, the accused persons sought forgiveness. It is next alleged that on 01.07.2025, petitioner, from his mobile, called at 09:28 a.m. and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8138 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026 2/3 informed that the victim committed suicide, accordingly, the informant reached the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his daughter lying, thus, alleges that the victim was strangulated to death.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, being the husband of the deceased, has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that the victim committed suicide.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant specifically alleges that after one year of the marriage, the accused persons including the petitioner started demanding dowry and on non-fulfillment of the demand, the victim was tortured and whenever the informant confronted the accused persons, they used to seek forgiveness. It is further submitted that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the same records based on the postmortem report that the injuries were

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8138 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026 3/3 antemortem and dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature due to pressure and compression of neck by ligature material after suspending the body and the cause of death is asphyxia and venous congestion due to antemortem hanging. It is next submitted that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that the victim died within seven years of marriage and presumption in law is against the husband and his family members. It is also submitted that even presuming what has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to be true that the victim committed suicide in that event also it is the husband whose responsibility is to ensure well being of his wife but then the husband created condition conducive for the victim to take the extreme step of ending her life.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in connection with Maranga P.S. Case No. 229 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea/Successor Court.

7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T