Sanny Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25677 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- SAHPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Sanny Kumar Son of Bindeshwar Rai @ Bindesh R/o Akluchak, P.S.- Shahpur, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 29.01.2026 and the informant alleges that his daughter was married to the petitioner on 24.04.2024, after marriage, the accused persons started demanding a bullet motorcycle, the informant showed his inability to fulfill the demand, further on 05.01.2025, his relative informed that his daughter has been killed, accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his daughter lying in the house and no one was
2/4 present, thus, alleges that named accused persons including the petitioner killed his daughter.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, being husband of the deceased. It is also submitted that no doubt death of the deceased took place within seven years of marriage, but then all deaths are not dowry deaths. It is also submitted that allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and the entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It is further submitted that informant realizing that he has falsely implicated the petitioner and his family members, filed a compromise, as such, the case has been compromised. It is also submitted that since the case has been compromised, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, opposes the regular bail application of the petitioner and submits that the FIR is with regard to dowry death which took place within seven years of marriage, as such, presumption in law also is against the petitioner and his family members.
3/4
6. The learned APP for the State further submits that of late it has become a trend that after FIR is instituted with respect to cases relating to dowry death, subsequently, the informant either resiles or enters into a compromise. It is also submitted that if the case has been compromised genuinely, then it points to the fact that informant initially tried to falsely implicate the petitioner, but if the informant was coerced into submission for entering into a compromise then that would give rise to another criminal case against the petitioner and his family members.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
8. However, the Court directs the Superintendent of Police, Patna (West) to inquire into the matter from the informant and if the informant before the police records his statement stating that the compromise is genuine, in that event petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, but then in that case an FIR be instituted against the informant, but if the informant before the police states that he was coerced into submission for entering into a compromise, in that event the Superintendent of Police, Patna (West) would be at liberty to initiate an appropriate proceeding against the accused persons,
4/4 who coerced informant to enter into a compromise.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Patna (West).
10. The learned APP for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad is directed to communicate the order to the Superintendent of Police, Patna (West).
11. Accordingly, the instant regular bail application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T