Satish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30429 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2024 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Rahul Singh @ Rahul Raj, Son of Lalan Singh @ Saheb Singh resident of village Muradpur, P.S. Rosera, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31133 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2024 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Satish Kumar, son of Lalan Singh @ Saheb Singh resident of village Muradpur, P.S. Rosera, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 30429 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Adv.
Mrs.Vaishnavi Singh, Adv For the State :
Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31133 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Adv.
Mrs.Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-08-2025
1. As both the criminal miscellaneous petitions have arisen out of same P.S. case, hence, they are taken up and decided together.
2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3, learned APP for the
2/4 State.
3. The Petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 233 of 2024, dated 27.09.2024, registered for the offence punishable under Section 103 of the B.N.S., 2023.
4. The main submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel are that as per the prosecution story, the dead body of a girl was found in Bagmati river that was later identified as a relative of the petitioners and during the course of investigation, one Ramanuj Singh, an uncle of the deceased, alleged that on 26.09.2024, after returning from grazing his cattle, he saw the deceased lying dead near her house where her mother, Rambha Devi and his brother Vinod Singh were present. Upon enquiry, they allegedly failed to give a satisfactory explanation and later that night, the petitioners arrived in a Wagon R vehicle and took the dead body and threw it in Bagmati river and accordingly as per this story, both the petitioners were not seen in killing the deceased and at the most, the allegation against them is limited to disposal of the dead body and further the petitioners had no reason to kill the deceased, as they are her maternal cousin uncles though, as per the statement of said witness Ramanuj Singh, the deceased was having love affair with her maternal
3/4 cousin uncle Pankaj, which angered her family members, that circumstance alone cannot lead to the inference that the petitioners were involved in her killing.
5. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer of the petitioners and submits that the most important witness, Ramanuj Singh, has clearly alleged that both the petitioners took the dead body and threw it in Bagmati river and further during the investigation, the petitioner Satish Kumar made his confessional statement revealing his role and that of co-accused Vinod Singh in hatching up a conspiracy to kill the deceased which shows that he was directly involved in the killing of the deceased.
6. Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and case diary of this case. The instant matter appears to be a case of honour killing by the family members of the victim on account of her relation with his cousin uncle Pankaj Singh, in view of the statement of the victim's relative, Ramanuj Singh, who stated that both the petitioners took the dead body of the victim and threw it in Bagmati river from where it was later recovered and as pointed out by learned APP, the petitioner Satish Kumar was involved in killing the deceased, so, considering this aspect, this court is not inclined to release him on bail, accordingly, his
4/4 prayer stands rejected.
7. So far as the prayer of petitioner namely, Rahul Singh @ Rahul Raj is concerned, he is alleged to have been involved only in the disposal of the dead body, this court is inclined to release him on bail. Accordingly, let the petitioner namely, Rahul Singh @ Rahul Raj be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 233 of 2024.
(Shailendra Singh, J) Rajiv/- U T