Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48381/2025bail granted

Vijay Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-07Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48381 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2025 Thana- SAKURABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Vijay Pandey S/o Triveni Pandey R/o Vill- Saidichak, P.S.- Shakurabad, DisttJehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Informant :

Mr. Bipin Bihari Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-08-2025 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bipin Bihari Prasad, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Shakurabad P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 25.02.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the First Information Report, the informant alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons committed the murder of his daughter(now, deceased) due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the ground that he is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48381 of 2025(2) dt.07-08-2025 2/3 father-in-law of the deceased. From bare perusal of the FIR it appears that although the petitioner is named in the FIR but there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act or demand of dowry against him rather the allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioner is general and omnibus and the son of the petitioner, namely, Ritik Pandey, who happens to be the husband of the deceased is in judicial custody since 14.04.2025.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is named in the FIR and apart from that the petitioner along with other accused persons were involved in the present crime in question.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner has clean antecedent and there is no specific allegation against him and the husband of the deceased is in judicial custody, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in connection with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48381 of 2025(2) dt.07-08-2025 3/3 Shakurabad P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T