Kashindra Mandal @ Kasindra Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24922 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2025 Thana- LADANIA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Kashindra Mandal @ Kasindra Mandal S/O Garib Mandal R/O VillageBorha, P.S- Ladaniya, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 22-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Ladaniya P.S. Case no.201 of 2025, registered under sections 80, 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that his daughter who was married to the petitioner herein was tortured for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and ultimately the petitioner as also his mother forced her to eat poisonous celphos tablet as a result of which she died in course of treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24922 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 2/2 reason that he is the husband of the deceased. The allegations of demand of dowry, torture etc. and the petitioner forcing her to eat celphos tablet are all false and concocted. The relationship between the parties were absolutely cordial. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.

5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the FIR together with the material that has transpired in course of investigation as evident from the order of the learned trial Court and the petitioner being the husband of the deceased, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the application is rejected.

7. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the learned Court below within a period of four weeks.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U T