← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21386/2026bail granted

Md. Jainuddin v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-10Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21386 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-224 Year-2025 Thana- MEHSI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Md. Jainuddin S/o Madish Miya R/o Village- Magrahi Chak, Fatullah, PSMehsi, Distt- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjeet Patel, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2026 Heard Mr.Ranjeet Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Binod Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 03.08.2025 in connection with Mehsi P.S. Case No. 224 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 01.08.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of BNS,2023.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith other co-accused persons have in furtherance of their common intention committed the dowry death of the sister of the informant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner

2/4 has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and the petitioner has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that he is father-in-law of the deceased. It appears from the FIR that the informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence and there is no specific allegation of any assault, overt-act or demand of dowry attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioner and similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Rubi Khatun @ Rubi Khatun@ Roji Khatun @ Rubina Khatun and others have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.91986 of 2025 and son of the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the deceased, is in judicial custody since 24.11.2025 and the police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 03.08.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner has clean antecedent, there is no specific allegation of any assault, overtact or demand of dowry attributed against the petitioner in the FIR, similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted

3/4 privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court and son of the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the deceased, is in judicial custody, let the petitioner, 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 C.J.M., Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Mehsi P.S. Case No. 224 of 2025, with the following conditions:- (I) Petitioner 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 his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) If the petitioner 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 petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

4/4 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T