Navin Rawat v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52700 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2024 Thana- HALSI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Navin Rawat S/o Late Jitan Rawat, R/o village- Kendih, P.S.- Khaira, Distt.- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 90, 115, 126(2), 303(2) and 109 read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Poonam Kumari has given written application before the SHO, Halsi P.S. Case stating therein that her marriage was solemnized three years ago with Kunal Rawat @ Amrendra Kumar Mandal S/o Navin Rawat according to Hindu rites and customs. In her marriage, her father had given gifts worth Rs. 25 lakhs. For sometimes they kept her nicely, but after lapse of one and a half year, Poonam Kumari became pregnant and after that her entire family, i.e., her husband, her father-in-law, her mother-in-law
2/5 along with other FIR named accused persons, i.e., altogether 12 persons of the family of husband of Poonam Kumari are alleged to have started torturing her and even assaulted her, asking her to bring Rs. 10 lakh from her father's house. On refusal, they assaulted her and due to that her fetus / child was born still. She has further stated in her application that she was under treatment and she went again to the house of her in-laws, but they again assaulted her and drove her out of the house. It is also alleged that they snatched her mobile.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is father-in-law and he is innocent and has committed no offence as has been alleged in the FIR. He further submits that altogether 12 persons of the family had been made accused on the basis of general and omnibus allegation levelled by the accused persons. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner of any assault or torture to Poonam Kumari. He next submits that one year prior to the birth of the child, the informant, Poonam Kumari was residing in her naiyhar and from her naiyhar she had gone to District Hospital, Lakhisarai for delivery of child, so there was no occasion to assault for her husband and others to the informant. He further submits that by looking into the prescription of District Hospital, Lakhisarai, it
3/5 would be clear that alive female child was born to the informant on 02.08.2023 at 04:59 PM. Later on, on the same prescription it is written that still birth at 12:58 AM on 03.08.2023. This prescription has been brought on record by way of AnnexureP/2. He next submits that the husband of the informant has already filed a Matrimonial Case No. 58 of 2024 for dissolution of marriage on 16.04.2024 and notices had been issued in the same case on 22.05.2024. After issuance of notice, in the divorce case, the informant has lodged this FIR on 04.07.2024 based on concocted and frivolous allegations to pressurize the petitioner and other family members. Learned counsel next submits that the petitioner carries clean antecedent as mentioned in the paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.06.2025.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and on careful consideration of the submissions made herein above and the records which have been annexed with the bail application, particularly the FIR, it is apparent that there is general and omnibus allegations levelled against all the family members of the petitioner. There is no
4/5 specific allegation against the petitioner, who is admittedly the father-in-law of the informant. It is also not in dispute that the husband of the informant has also filed a Matimonial Case in which notices have been issued to the informant and it is subsequent to lodging of the Matrimonial Case that the FIR in question has been lodged, considering all these aspects of the present case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending / successor Court, in connection with Halsi P.S. Case No. 203 of 2024, subject to the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in the Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates without substantial reason, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
5/5 nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned 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 name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands allowed. (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) Shahnawaz/- U T