Patna High CourtCR. MISC./78745/2025bail rejected

Saurav Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-12-04Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78745 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Saurav Kumar S/o Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Kumar @ Om Prakash Chandrabanshi R/o Village- Wafapujr Sharma, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali Arpa Tola, Vaya Makhdumpur, Anchal- Hilsa, Badaouwan Nalanda, P.S.- Hilsa and District- Nalanda At Present Address- Sitjain, P.S.- Gopapur, and District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mr Sikandar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-12-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No.19/2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that 12.12.2024 at 9.00 P.M. when she went to wake up her daughter, she found the room locked from inside, thus from the slit she saw that her daughter was hanging from the bamboo of the room, next alleges that her daughter was in love with the petitioner and had disclosed that she had married the petitioner about 6 months ago in a temple but their relationship was being

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78745 of 2025(2) dt.04-12-2025 2/3 objected by the parents of the petitioner and petitioner even had showed his opposition to the relationship, further Meera had called her daughter on her mobile from mobile no.8409104863 and thereafter her daughter committed suicide.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that the deceased prior to her death had disclosed that she has married the petitioner in a temple about six months back. It is next submitted that petitioner also does not dispute the fact that he has married the deceased. It is next submitted that deceased was not willing to accompany the petitioner to her matrimonial home. It is also submitted that even death took place in the parental house of the deceased.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that a suicide note was left by the deceased, wherein she has recorded that she had married the petitioner about six months back in a temple and became pregnant but petitioner and his family

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78745 of 2025(2) dt.04-12-2025 3/3 members were not ready to perform their marriage in presence of family members. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that since the deceased was carrying pregnancy on account of her relationship with the petitioner and petitioner subsequently started opposing the relationship knowing that the marriage was performed in secrecy as such was not willing to give legitimacy to the marriage by performing marriage in presence of the society and family members as such the deceased who became pregnant was not able to suffer the trauma hence committed suicide. It is thus submitted that it was petitioner and his family members who abetted the victim in committing the occurrence of suicide. It is also submitted that a person takes extreme steps of ending the life only when the trauma become unbearable.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T