Subodh Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83774 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2024 Thana- NOKHA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Subodh Tiwari Son of Late Parash Tiwari @ Paras Nath Tiwari Resident of Village - Shitalpur, P.S - Nokha, District - Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, A.P.P.

For the Informant :

Mr. Virendra Kumar Ray, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-03-2026 Heard Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Virendra Kumar Ray, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 02.09.2025 in connection with Nokha P.S. Case No. 113 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Seema Kunwar alleged that her daughter Ranjani Kumari was married with Subodh Tiwari in the year 2012 after marriage her daughter went at Sasural village Shitalpur where she was subjected to cruelty by her in laws. Further alleged that on 26.03.2024 Subodh Tiwari, Sunil Tiwari, Anil Tiwari and Lila Devi have

2/4 committed the murder of Ranjani Kumari. After receiving the information, the informant along with others went there and saw the dead body of her daughter Ranjani Kumari, the informant has claimed that the accused persons have committed the murder of her daughter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has made an accused in this case merely on the ground that petitioner is husband of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in fact, the deceased has committed suicide herself and before the present occurrence, the deceased has also tried to commit suicide and for this purpose the sanha has also been registered by the family members of the petitioner. Apart from the aforesaid, number of witnesses have stated in their deposition before the police that the deceased has committed suicide herself which is stated in paragraph nos. 18, 62 and 63 of the Case Diary. It is further submitted that police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and the petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2025.

3/4

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Nokha P.S. Case No. 113 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

4/4 acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T