Prahlad Kumar @ Prahlad Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41612 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-295 Year-2024 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger ====================================================== 1.

Prahlad Kumar @ Prahlad Mandal, aged about 19 years, male, son of Kapildeo Mandal 2.

Kapildeo Mandal, aged about 60 years, male, son of Tanuklal Mandal 3.

Basant Kumar, aged about 18 years, male, son of Kapildeo Mandal 4.

Indra Devi, aged about 53 years, female, wife of Kapildeo Mandal 5.

Govind Kumar, aged about 20 years, male, son of Kaildeo Mandal All are residents of English Tikrampur, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-10-2025 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 295 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 80, 238, 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioners along with other accused persons, have killed the daughter of the informant, due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

2/4 petitioners submitted that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that petitioners no. 1, 3 and 5 are own brother of the husband of the deceased and brother-in-law of the deceased. Petitioners no. 2 and 4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively, who had no concern with the married life of the deceased and her husband. Petitioners have clean antecedent. On these grounds, petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the fact that the petitioners no. 1, 3 and 5 are own brother of the husband of the deceased and brother-in-law of the deceased, who are aged about 19 years and 18 years and 20 years respectively and are students. I am of the opinion that petitioners no. 1, 3 and 5 have, prima facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.

7. The petitioners no. 1, 3 and 5, above named, are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

3/4 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District Court where the case is pending, in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 295 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

8. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners no. 1, 3 and 5 as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is pending against the petitioners no. 1, 3 and 5 as what has been stated in paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.

9. So far as petitioners no. 2 and 4 is concerned, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, their complicity in the offence cannot be denied. More so, they had not taken any effort for reconciliation between her son and the deceased, rather, they had demanded dowry, which led ultimately into death of the daughter of the informant (deceased). It is stated in paragraph no. 98 of the case diary by one independent witness Mr. Ravi Mandal that the family members including the petitioners no. 2 and 4 along with the husband of the deceased were seen disposing the dead body of the daughter of the informant. I am not inclined to enlarge the

4/4 petitioners no. 2 and 4 on pre-arrest bail at this stage.

10. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T