Santosh Paswan @ Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58348 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2025 Thana- Rampur Chauram District- Arwal ====================================================== 1.

Santosh Paswan @ Santosh Kumar S/o- Mahendra Paswan Resident of village- Kudrashi, P.S.- Rampur Chouram, Dist- Arwal 2.

Mahendra Paswan S/o- Late Balmiki Prasad Resident of village- Kudrashi, P.S.- Rampur Chouram, Dist- Arwal 3.

Rinku Devi @ Rinki Kumari W/o- Santosh Paswan Resident of villageKudrashi, P.S.- Rampur Chouram, Dist- Arwal ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Kunti Devi W/o- Vijay Paswan Village- Newana Ps- Karpi Dist- Arwal ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Piyush Kant Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rana Randhir Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State as also the informant.

2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Rampur Chauram P.S. Case No. 41 of 2025 instituted under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 lodged on 24.04.2025 by the informant, Kunti Devi.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the marriage took place in the year 2024 but the allegation of torture is there, the lady wanted to talk to her daughter but failed. Accordingly, the neighbour was called and having found

2/5 something suspicious reached the place and saw her dead body. This led to the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitoiner no.1 is the brother-in-law (Bhaisur), the petitioner no.2 is the father-in-law as also the petitioner no.3 is sister-inlaw (Gotni). They are living separately and have no role to play in the matter. It was fight between the husband and wife which led the lady to commit suicide.

5. In this case, the coordinate bench had called for the case diary which is on record and the learned APP and learned counsel for the informant have taken this Court to the supervision note of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (recorded in para-49 of the case diary) dated 30.06.2025 to show that it was the petitioner no.1, Santosh Paswan who was running the house. The deceased was a single child in the family and as such, they entered into the marriage believing that the property will be inherited by her but 10 days prior to the marriage, the parents of the deceased blessed with a male child and this led to the frustration of the petitioner, Santosh Paswan and the Rinku Devi (the petitioner no.3).

6. It is to be noted that for any amount that the lady needed, she had to go before the petitioner no.1, Santosh

3/5 Paswan. On 21.04.2025, it was the first marriage anniversary of the couple, she wanted to celebrate it but as she did not get the support from both the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law, she committed suicide.

7. The Dy.S.P. has also recorded that the husband Kundan Paswan and the father-in-law have no role to play in the matter.

8. On the basis of the aforesaid supervision note of the Dy.S.P., learned counsel for the State and the informant jointly submit that certainly, the role of the petitioner no.1, Santosh Paswan and the petitioner no.3 Rinku Devi cannot be ignored.

9. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties as also what has transpired in the case diary, the anticipatory application of petitioner no.1, Santosh Paswan and petitioner no.3, Rinku Devi stands rejected.

10. So far as the petitioner no2, Mahendra Paswan is concerned, in view of the submissions put forward by the parties as recorded above, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner no.2, Mahendra Paswan.

11. Let petitioner no.2, Mahendra Paswan be released on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the concerned

4/5 court within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Rampur Chauram P.S. Case No. 41 of 2025 to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-II, Arwal subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions.

(i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner no.2, Mahendra Paswan who shall provide official document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card etc.) to show his/her bona fide; (ii) The petitioner no.2, Mahendra Paswan shall be appearing before the police station as and when required for cooperating in the investigation;

(iii) the petitioner no.2, Mahendra Paswan shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iv) the petitioner no.2, Mahendra Paswan 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;

5/5 (v) the petitioner no.2, Mahendra Paswan shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T