← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45135/2025bail granted

Sanjeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-11-15Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45135 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2025 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Sanjeev Kumar S/O Late Radhe Shyam Jha R/o Village- Kahua, PS- Biraul, District- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Sakshi Deep, Advocate For the informant :

Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 15-11-2025 Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Mrs. Sakshi Deep as also Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the informant beside Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 176 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Section 108 of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 lodged on 04.04.2025 by the informant, Sanjay Kumar Jha.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that his niece (deceased) was working as an Accountant at Mahatma Gandhi Educational Institute in the district of Darbhanga.

4. On the fateful day, the Manager, Rajeev Kumar

2/4 informed the father of the Anjali Kumari that she has been admitted to at R.B. Memorial Hospital at Laheriyasarai where she subsequently died a day after alleging that she committed suicide due to some illegal action of the Institute. This led the FIR.

5. The petitioner is brother of the Manager, Rajeev Kumar of the Mahatma Gandhi Educational Institute and the allegation as per the case diary (which is on record pursuant to the summoning of the same by the coordinate bench), he was in regular telephonic conversation with the lady.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has remained in custody since 11.04.2025, one of the witness, Kajal Kumari who was residing adjacent to the room of the deceased has narrated in para-11 of the case diary that she alongwith other inmates saw the deceased rushing to the washroom throwing up. They subsequently informed the management which followed rushing her to the hospital which clearly shows that even if the police version regarding regular conversation with the petitioner is accepted, nowhere takes the prosecution story to show that he forced the lady to take ultimate steps.

7. Learned counsel for the informant on the other

3/4 opposes the prayer submitting that charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under section 108 of the B.N.S. (306 of the IPC) having found the case true against the petitioner. The regular conversation clearly shows that his attitude led the lady to commit suicide.

8. The facts are there, investigation has been completed, charge-sheet submitted, the petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2025, the statement of Kajal Kumari is on record, considering the aforesaid facts, ultimately, the petitioner will have to face the trial, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of bail with conditions.

9. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Darbhanga, in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 176 of 2025 subject to the following conditions:

(i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive

4/4 dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

(iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T