Rahul Kumar Singh @ Rahul Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18243 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2026 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR SINGH @ RAHUL SINGH S/o Jiwesh Kumar Singh @ Jiwesh Singh R/o vill - Dumariya, P.S.- Dumariyaghat, Distt.- East Champaran at Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Sri Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate Sri Himanshu Ranjan, Advcate Sri Manish Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :
Sri Ram Sumiran Rai, A.P.P.
For the Informant :
Sri Arun, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-05-2026
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri Arun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 10.01.2026. It is submitted that the informant alleges that his daughter was married to the petitioner on 08.12.2022 and after marriage the victim was tortured. It is further alleged that informant received a call from the petitioner on 07.01.2026 from his mobile no. 9110930767 on his mobile
2/4 no. 9939528219 at 11:08 a.m. and said that if the land is not registered in his name at Motihari then the victim would be killed. It is next alleged that the victim used to tell that she has a child and she will bear the torture for the child and will live for the child. It is alleged that petitioner had habit of drinking also. It is further alleged that petitioner called his son and informed that the victim has committed suicide, accordingly, the informant reached the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the victim, thus, alleges that the victim was killed and thereafter hanged.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that no doubt, the victim died within seven years of marriage and presumption in law is against the husband and his family members but then all deaths are not dowry deaths. It is next submitted that petitioner is a practicing Lawyer and he is aware of the law and the consequences which would entail if any occurrence of the nature as alleged takes place. It is also submitted that after marriage the victim was residing at her matrimonial home in the village and the petitioner was practicing at Patna and petitioner about two months back had
3/4 brought the victim to Patna. It is further submitted that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner had gone to the Court and returned at 05:15 p.m. when he found the house locked from inside and his two and half years child was crying and he somehow managed the child to open the latch and when he entered the house he saw the dead body of his wife hanging, thus, he immediately informed the concerned police station and the brother of the deceased and the brother of the deceased subsequently informed the informant who is father of the deceased. It is next submitted that had petitioner been involved in the occurrence in that event efforts would have been made to conceal the evidence by disposing of the dead body but then petitioner immediately informed the police and the brother of the deceased which amply demonstrates his conduct.
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.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that the victim died. It is further submitted that the death took place within seven years of the marriage, as such, presumption in law also is against the husband and his family
4/4 members. It is next submitted that from the postmortem report, it would manifest that the same records asphyxia caused by ligature around neck as a result of hanging which amply demonstrates that the victim committed suicide but then why she committed suicide is also an aspect to be considered while considering the bail application of the petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner might not have killed the victim but then being the husband it was his responsibility to ensure well being of his wife but the petitioner instead of taking care of his wife created condition conducive for her to take the extreme step of ending her life when she had a child also which amply demonstrates that the victim could not bear the trauma of torture and, thus, committed suicide.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in connection with Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 39 of 2026 pending in the Court of learned 9th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna/Successor Court.
8. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T