Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Das v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41829 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2024 Thana- RAMPUR HARI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.
Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Das S/o- Late Raj Kumar Das Village- Brahanda PSRampur Hari Dist- Muzaffarpur 2.
Gunja Devi W/o- Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Das Village- Brahanda PS-Rampur Hari Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 07-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The allegation in the first information report is that the son of the informant was killed by her daughter-in-law, grandson and the wife of the grandson of the informant on the night on 09.08.2024. Thereafter, they all fled away.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation at the face of it does not seem to inspire confidence in view of the fact that the informant herself
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41829 of 2025(3) dt.07-08-2025 2/3 stated in the first information report that she was sleeping next to the deceased and yet she did not raise any alarm, hence, the allegation does not seem to be believable. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact some neighbours had greedy eyes over a piece of land of the deceased, for which under mysterious circumstances, the murder of the deceased was committed. It is further submitted that the cause of death has been opined due to asphyxia as a result of throttling but no scientific evidence has been brought on record.
The materials collected during course of investigation do not make out a concrete evidence against the petitioners, who are the son and daughter-in-law of the deceased, rather from the restatement of the informant, it would appear that there was some dispute and scuffle between the deceased and his wife, Chaiti Devi, as the informant had also strained relationship with her daughter-in-law, Chaiti Devi and it is for this reason that all the accused persons have been implicated. It remains a fact that, despite the presence of the informant at home, there is no eye witness to the case. The charges have already been framed on 10.07.2025. It is pointed out that the co-accused, Cheti Devi @ Chaiti Devi, who is the wife of the deceased, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41829 of 2025(3) dt.07-08-2025 3/3 2024 (Annexure-P/3). The petitioners have no criminal antecedent and have been languishing in custody since 28.03.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail petition.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Rampur Hari P.S. Case No.151 of 2024, subject to the condition that :
(i) The petitioners shall co-operate in the trial. (ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, their bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned court concerned.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) Trivedi/- U T