Awanish Kumar @ Avanish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38161 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2024 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Awanish Kumar @ Avanish Kumar S/o Ram Jiwan Singh Resident of Village - Padumker, P.S. - Patahi, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Madhurendra Kumar, Adv.
For the State :
Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP For the Informant :
Mr.Manoj Kumar, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 128 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of IPC.
3. As per allegation, the petitioner, who is husband of the victim/deceased, along with other co-accused persons committed her murder by administering poison and concealed her dead body.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The dead body of the deceased has not been recovered, as cause of death could not be ascertained. He has submitted further that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38161 of 2025(5) dt.20-01-2026 2/2 the deceased consumed poison and died. Before her death, treatment was given to her, which transpires in re-investigation.
5. On the other hand, Sri Shailendra Kumar, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner, who is husband of the deceased, had illicit relation with one Priya Devi, daughter of Pappu Singh. This fact has been mentioned in the FIR. Due to his illicit relation, he inflicted atrocities on the deceased. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that brother of the deceased has submitted pen drive containing the photograph of the petitioner and Priya Devi.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn't deserve the privileges for regular bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T