Ravindra Kumar Sah @ Ravindra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66980 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2025 Thana- GHOGHARDIHA District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

Ravindra Kumar Sah @ Ravindra Kumar S/O Raja Lal Sahu @ Rajlal Sahu @ Raj Lal Sah R/O Village- Nauwabakhar, P.S- Ghoghardiha, DistrictMadhubani. 2.

Shiv Kumar Sah @ Shiv Kumar Sahu @ Gopi Sah S/O Arvind Kumar Sah R/O Village- Nauwabakhar, P.S- Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Mr.Ravi Prakash, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-09-2025 Heard Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Ghoghardiha P.S. Case No. 71 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 85, 103(1), 3(5) of the BNS lodged on 02.05.2025 by the informant.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant, Jagdish Pd. Gupta solemnized the marriage of his daughter with one Ranjeet Sahu about ten years ago and spent approximately Rs.10 lakhs. Out of the wedlock, two sons were born. It is alleged that for the last three to four years, her husband along with his family members started demanding a Bullet motorcycle and Rs.2,00,000/- and subjected the deceased to cruelty. Subsequently, he received information about her death and on reaching village Nauwabakher, he found that the Ranjeet Sahu and other accused persons alongwith unknown persons were attempting to cremate the dead body. On being informed, the police reached the spot and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66980 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 2/3 recovered the semi-burnt dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and the allegation against them are general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner no.1 is elder brother of Ranjeet Sahu (husband of the victim) who is said to be in custody and petitioner no. 2 is nephew of petitioner no.1. There is no specific allegation of any overt-act against these petitioners. It is the petitioner no.1 who is said to inform the informant with regard to the death of wife of Ranjeet Sahu who is said to be his brother.

5. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners submitting that there has been death of a young lady having two minor kids and the said death has taken place in a suspicious circumstances.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties and the fact that the husband of the deceased is in custody and the allegations against these petitioner are general and omnibus in nature and they are elder brother and nephew of the husband of the deceased, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. Let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66980 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 3/3 in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks, from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistratre 1st Class, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani in connection with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioners 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 his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioners 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 (iv) the petitioners 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.

(Ajit Kumar, J) perwez U T