Suman Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69230 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2025 Thana- ITARHI District- Buxar ====================================================== 1.

Suman Yadav, Male, aged about 30 years, S/o Late Kunja Bihari Yadav, R/o Village - Indore, P.S.- Itarhi, District - Buxar 2.

Rajendra Yadav, Male, aged about 26 years, S/o Late Kunja Bihari Yadav, R/o Village - Indore, P.S.- Itarhi, District - Buxar 3.

Lallu @ Lalu Yadav, Male, aged about 22 years, S/o Late Kunja Bihari Yadav, R/o Village - Indore, P.S.- Itarhi, District - Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 15-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and perused the postmortem report.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 80(2), 61 and 238 of the BNS, 2023.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, it is a case of dowry death of the informant's sister due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand by the petitioner and his in-laws

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that all the three petitioners are dewar of the deceased

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69230 of 2025(3) dt.15-11-2025 2/2 and they are separate from the mess and business of the deceased and her husband and the petitioners have got clean antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, then the investigation will be affected as there is direct allegation for committing the death of the deceased against the petitioners.

6. On perusal of the first information report, case diary as well as impugned order dated 19.08.2025, it appears that from paragraph no. 69, 70, 71 of the case diary that the cremation of the deceased (Shobha Devi) was done by the petitioners, indicating their substantial involvement in the offence and also the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T