Ganga Prajapati @ Ganga Ram Kumhar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81516 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2025 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
Ganga Prajapati @ Ganga Ram Kumhar S/o- Late Ram Kishun Kumhar R/v- Ugahani Ps- Chenari Dist- Rohtas 2.
Sharda Devi W/o- Ganga Prajapati @ Ganga Ram Kumhar R/v- Ugahani PsChenari Dist- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms.Adya Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad- A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-01-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that his daughter was married to Vikash in the Year 2021, after marriage a female child was born and couple were leading a happy conjugal life but after the birth of the child, the accused persons started demanding dowry and ornaments and used to torture for non-fulfilment of the demand.
2/4 It is next alleged that on 05.05.2025 at 7.00 A.M. his son in law informed that victim committed suicide. Accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his daughter, thus alleges that the accused persons killed his daughter by strangulating her.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners, being father in-law and mother in-law, have 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 is not an eye witness to the occurrence and the entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It is also submitted that the marriage of the deceased with Vikash was performed in the Year 2021 and in between 2021 till institution of the instant FIR, no case ever came to be instituted either by the victim or the informant alleging torture for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. It is also submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant himself alleges that couple were leading a peaceful conjugal life and out of the wedlock, a child was born. It is next submitted that when the victim married Vikash in the Year 2021, she was an Intermediate, but then, Vikash and the family members propelled her to continue with her further study
3/4 and she completed her graduation and also appeared in competitive examination, but then, she was not selected which gave rise to frustration and it might by a probability that on account of such frustration the victim committed suicide. It is also submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted no doubt, the victim died within seven years of marriage, as such, presumption in law is against the husband and his family members, but then, all deaths are not dowry deaths.
It is also submitted that whenever any dispute arises in between the husband and wife and the occurrence of the nature as alleged takes place, the entire family members are implicated in a mechanical manner with general and omnibus allegation. It is also submitted that had the petitioners participated in the occurrence, in that event, efforts would have been made to dispose of the dead body with a view to conceal evidence, but then, the dead body was sent for post mortem for ascertaining the cause of death and post mortem records the cause of death as asphyxia. It is also submitted that petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.
4/4 custody.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Chenari P. S. Case No.184 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T