Kusum Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34759 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2023 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna ====================================================== Kusum Kumari W/o- Vijay Kumar Singh @ Vijay Singh Village- Kumhartoli Near Durga Mandir Masaurhi Ps- Masaurhi Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra Ms. Shivani Mishra Mrs. Pragati Singh Mr. Shashank Shekhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 170 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC.
3. According to the prosecution case, two sons of the informant, namely Prince Kumar (aged 15 years) and Priyaranjan Kumar, (deceased) aged 13 years, had taken admission in a boarding school run by four persons of the same family, including the petitioner. On the occasion of Holi, both the sons of the informant had come to their house, and thereafter they returned to their school on 11-03-2023. On the next day,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34759 of 2025(6) dt.18-11-2025 2/3 i.e., 12-03-2023, the informant received telephonic information that his younger son, Priyanjan Kumar, had died. He rushed to the school and saw the dead body of Priyanjan Kumar lying on a chowki. The informant wanted to talk with his elder son, Prince Kumar, but the accused persons named in the FIR, including this petitioner, did not allow him and forcibly loaded the dead body into a vehicle and dropped it at the house of the informant. In order to conceal the occurrence, the CCTV camera was also dismantled.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. Whatsoever evidences have been collected, that is against coaccused Chandan Kumar and not against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State have opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the elder son of the informant, Prince Kumar, is an eyewitness and his statement has been recorded by the investigating officer in Paragraph No. 215 of the case diary. Prince Kumar has stated that co-accused Chandan Kumar, leveling allegation on the deceased that he had destroyed the CCTV camera, started assaulting him. In the meanwhile, the petitioner took Prince Kumar on the upper floor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34759 of 2025(6) dt.18-11-2025 3/3 and later on, she apprised him that his brother had committed suicide.
6. There is no explanation as to why an FIR was not lodged by the accused persons when, according to them, it was a case of suicide and the dead body was found in the boarding school, run by them. The investigation is still going on.
7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn't deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T