Naresh Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11468 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2025 Thana- GANGABRIDGE District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
Naresh Rai S/o Late Lala Rai R/o Village - Diwan Tok, P.S - Gangabridge, District - Vaishali 2.
Sinki Kumari @ Laxmi Kumari D/o Naresh Rai R/o Village - Diwan Tok, P.S - Gangabridge, District - Vaishali 3.
Nishu Kumari @ Nisha Kumari @ Rinki Kumari D/o Naresh Rai R/o Village - Diwan Tok, P.S - Gangabridge, District - Vaishali 4.
Chhoti Kumari D/o Naresh Rai R/o Village - Diwan Tok, P.S - Gangabridge, District - Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Gangabridge P.S. Case No.149 of 2025, F.I.R dated 18.09.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on 17.09.2025, is that the informant's sister, Nishu Kumari, was married to Kundan Kumar, son of Naresh Rai, on 05.05.2023 according to Hindu rites and customs, and at the time of marriage, sufficient
2/4 gifts including jewellery, clothes, utensils, and furniture worth about Rs.3 lakhs, along with Rs.2 lakhs in cash towards marriage expenses, were given. It is alleged that after the marriage, the husband and in-laws of the deceased began subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty while demanding an additional sum of Rs.4 lakhs for the purchase of a fourwheeler. The informant further alleged that on 16.09.2025 at about 10:00 P.M., he received information from villagers that his sister had been killed and her body had been thrown into the Ganga River, and upon making inquiries at her matrimonial home, he came to learn that Kundan Kumar, his family members, and the petitioners had, in furtherance of a conspiracy, murdered Nishu Kumari and caused disappearance of the dead body.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is father-in-law of the deceased and petitioner Nos.2 to 4, are married sisters-in-law of the deceased and there is nothing specific against these petitioners while the mother-inlaw was taken into judicial custody and she is on bail and it has further been submitted that the husband of the deceased, who is also under judicial custody and is still languishing in jail. It has next been submitted that out of the wedlock between the
3/4 deceased and her husband, namely, Kundan Rai, there is one child aged about one year, who is staying in the family along with them and are being looked after by the petitioner.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that there is nothing specific against these petitioners and the mother-in-law and husband of the deceased have already been taken into judicial custody, while the husband is still languishing in jail. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with Gangabridge P.S. Case No.149 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family
4/4 member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) sharun/- U T