Ajay Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19074 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2024 Thana- PIYAR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.
Ajay Ram S/o- Late Rudal Ram Vill- Mohanpur PS- Piyar DistrictMuzaffarpur 2.
Laxmi Devi W/o- Ajay Ram Vill- Mohanpur PS- Piyar District- Muzaffarpur 3.
Vikash Kumar S/o- Ajay Ram Vill- Mohanpur PS- Piyar DistrictMuzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vibhuti Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Md. Ataur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2026 Heard Mr. Vibhuti Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ataur Rahman, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 05.01.2026 in connection with Piyar P.S. Case No. 140 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 03.08.2024 registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115, 85, 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that daughter of the informant was married about ten years ago to one Kanchan Ram. After marriage, she was allegedly harassed by her husband and in-laws over dowry. On 01.08.2024, she informed her
2/4 mother about being assaulted and threatened. The petitioners have beaten her on instigation of her husband. On 02.08.2024, the informant was informed by the villagers that his daughter had been killed. Upon reaching her matrimonial home, he found her dead body and the accused absconding.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have clean antecedent. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioners have committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. Although the petitioners are named in FIR, but from bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is no specific allegation of any assault, over act or demand of dowry attributed against them rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including these petitioners. Petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law, petitioner no.2 is sister-in-law and petitioner no.3 is nephew of the deceased and they are living separately from the deceased's family. They have no concern at all with the family affairs of the deceased. The police, after investigation, submitted the chargesheet against the petitioners. The petitioners are languishing in judicial custody since 05.01.2026.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
3/4
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioners have clean antecedent, there is no specific allegation of any assault, over act or demand of dowry attributed against them, they are in-laws of the deceased and living separately from the deceased's family, let the petitioners, above named, 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 learned ACJM-X, East Muzzafarpur in connection with Piyar P.S. Case No. 140 of 2024, with the following conditions:- (I) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the
4/4 acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Abhishek/- U T