← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24469/2026bail granted

Rabesh Kumar @ Ravesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-13Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24469 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-737 Year-2025 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran ====================================================== Rabesh Kumar @ Ravesh Kumar Son of Late Amerika Sah Resident of village- Lachanauta PS -Gaunaha Distt -West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gyan Prakash For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay Mr.Sharad Kumar Verma Mr.Hemant Ray Mr.Sagar Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.02.2026 and is a person with clean antecedent. It is next submitted that informant alleges that his daughter was married to Nitesh on 07.03.2025, after marriage the husband along with accused persons including the petitioner started torturing the victim for non-fulfilment of

2/4 dowry demand of a motorcycle and a gold chain. Further the informant on 10.07.2025 went to the house of the accused persons for bringing the victim back to her parental home but the accused persons asked him to take her back on 18.07.2025. It is next alleged that informant called the victim on 17.07.2025 but he was informed by Shatrudhan that victim had gone to Patna with her husband who became ill. Further, on 19.07.2025 the son of the informant went to meet his sister but could not find her, thus went to the spare parts' shop of Nitesh who fled on seeing his son without disclosing about the victim thereafter his son went to the matrimonial house of the victim on rent but the house was locked from outside and no one was present thus alleges that his daughter was killed and the dead body was disposed of.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being elder brother in-law has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that petitioner had earlier moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.85550 of 2025 and the same was permitted to be withdrawn by an order dated 19.01.2026. It is also submitted that similarly situated co-accused Sarvesh along with two others had moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail

3/4 by filing Cr. Misc. No.90270 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 20.02.2026 passed by a learned Coordinate Bench, it is thus submitted that the case of the petitioner is on similar footing as that of Sarvesh Kumar and others.

5. The learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the bail application but then are not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that Sarvesh Kumar and others have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that if privilege of bail is granted, the petitioner will abscond, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to prove his innocence.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is pending in

4/4 connection with Shikarpur P. S. Case No.737 of 2025.

7. The application stands allowed.

8. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that petitioner after her release is trying the delay the framing of charge or after framing of charge is trying to delay the trial in both the conditions, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T