← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./12911/2026bail granted

Manish Kumar @ Manshi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-01Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12911 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2014 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna ====================================================== Manish Kumar @ Manshi Kumar S/o Ramkishore Singh R/o Village - Shahabaad, P.S - Masaurhi, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 01-07-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 54 of 2014 registered for the offence under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 03.02.2014 by the informant, Uday Kumar.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the deceased, niece was married to the petitioner in the year 2009 but was always tortured for dowry and in the year 2014 information came about her death and further, the mortal remains were consigned to flame. This led to the F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of occurrence, he was in Daman which has come during the Police investigation also. Actually, she was being treated for

2/4 mental disease by none else than Dr. Narendra Pratap Singh between the year 2010 to 2014 and this fact has also come during the course of investigation. He already lost his wife, the informant lodged F.I.R., the Police during the investigation firmly believe no role of the petitioner as such, no coercive steps was taken necessitating filing of the petition. Now that the matter has once again been taken up, the present anticipatory bail.

5. In this case, the coordinate Bench had called for the case diary and this Court has taken note of the supervision note of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Masaurhi-I, according to which he has endorsed the submission put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lady was under treatment with the doctor as named above between the year year 2010 to 2014 and on the day of the death, this petitioner was in Daman.

6. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the F.I.R. is of the year 2014 but the Police is still continuing with the investigation and repeatedly they have found the case to be untrue.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be cooperating in the investigation and shall himself

3/4 available as and when required by the Police

8. Learned APP though opposes the prayer stating that he has come belatedly, concede to the point that the different paragraph of the case diary records that the Police has not come to any clue to fix the role of the petitioner in the alleged death of his wife.

9. Taking into account the aforesaid fact as also the way the investigation is moving, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.

10. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi, in connection with Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 54 of 2014 subject to the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document (Aadhar Card/Voter Id/Driving License/Pan Card) to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police Station as and when required for cooperating in the

4/4 investigation;

(iii) the petitioner 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 bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iv) the petitioner 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;

(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T