Patna High CourtCR. MISC./74946/2025bail granted

Antu Chaudhary @ Antu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-30Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74946 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-401 Year-2024 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Antu Chaudhary @ Antu Kumar S/O Kamta Chaudhary R/O village- Amaithi Mahua, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Subhash Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 401 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner is accused of killing the deceased for demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased had committed suicide which has come during investigation.

5. From the materials available on record, it appears that the deceased has committed suicide because of dispute with the family members.

6. Considering the aforesaid, this application is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74946 of 2025(7) dt.30-03-2026 2/2 allowed.

7. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-1, Gaya/ concerned Court in connection with Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 401 of 2024.

8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T