Banarasi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39030 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-411 Year-2025 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Banarasi Kumar S/O Kangali Chaudhary R/O village- Mahuawan, PSMadanpur, Distt- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukul Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Matloob Rab, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with G.R No. 3389 of 2025 arising out of Madanpur P.S. Case No. 411 of 2025, for the offence punishable under Section 108 of B.N.S, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the present case was instituted on 20.11.2025 on the basis of the written report of the informant, Sarita Devi, who is the elder sister of the deceased. It is alleged that the marriage of the deceased with the petitioner, Banarasi Kumar, was solemnized about two years prior to the incidence. It is further alleged that the deceased was subject to harassment and the petitioner has an illicit relationship with another woman, about which the deceased had informed the informant. It is further alleged that due to on-going issue, the deceased had also attempted to commit

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39030 of 2026(3) dt.24-07-2026 2/2 suicide by consuming poison about six to seven months before the incidence. It is further alleged that on 19.11.2025 at about 11:00 A.M., the deceased informed the informant that the petitioner had assaulted her. Later, at about 08:00 P.M. on the same day, the informant received information that the deceased, who was about six months pregnant, had died by hanging.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, even though being a husband is innocent and has no role in such incidence. Counsel lastly submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner drawing the attention towards the impugned order.

6. Having heard the parties and taking into account the gravity and nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. It is expected that the Trial Court will conclude the trial within a period of six months.

(Alok Kumar, J) Bipin/- U T