Vishu Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52431 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-263 Year-2025 Thana- BEUR District- Patna ====================================================== Vishu Ray S/o- Late Ramdev Ray Vill/Mohalla- 70 Feet Road Shiv Shakti Path Road No-03, PS- Beur Distt- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Surya Narayan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Chittaranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant :
Mr. Kumar Koushik, Advocate Mr. Hemant Raj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-08-2025 Heard Mr. Surya Narayan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kumar Koushik, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 263 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 25.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant was married on 09.05.2022 and at the time of marriage, a Scorpio car, jewellery, household articles and Rs. 10,00,000/- were given
2/4 as dowry. After seven to eight months of marriage, the accused persons, namely Amarjeet @ Amit Kumar (husband), Pramila Devi (mother-in-law), Vishu Ray (father-in-law), Puja Kumari (nanad) and Tutu Kumar (devar), allegedly demanded an additional Rs. 10,00,000/- for house construction and business expansion and subjected the deceased to cruelty on nonfulfilment of the demand. On 24.05.2025 at about 10:00 A.M., the deceased informed the informant over phone that she was being assaulted and threatened with death, and the same evening the informant was informed by Pramila Devi and Puja Kumari that his sister had died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has made accused merely on the ground that he is father-in-law of the deceased. From the bare perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that although petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but there is no specific allegation of assault, overt act and demand of dowry attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioner and the son of the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the deceased is in judicial custody since 15.07.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
3/4 State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the occurrence had taken place within seven years of marriage and apart from that, there is allegation against all the accused persons in the F.I.R.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner has clean antecedent and the son of the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the deceased is in judicial custody since 15.07.2025, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his 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 Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Patna in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 263 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
4/4 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 bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Neha/- U T