Satish Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88168 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-300 Year-2024 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Satish Paswan S/O Sri Mahesh Paswan Resident of Village- Brahampur, P.S. Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar No 13, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kamtaul P.S. Case No. 300 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30, 238 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

The prosecution case, in short, is that after Neha Kumari's (deceased) marriage with the petitioner, she was subjected to continuous dowry demands, mental and physical cruelty by the petitioner and his family. On 16.10.2024, she was allegedly assaulted and hanged to death, and the accused hurriedly cremated her body to destroy evidence. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88168 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026 2/2 against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner. Admittedly, petitioner has been made scapegoat by the informant. It is submitted that after death of deceased, informant was informed and in their presence last rites were performed. Petitioner is a man of clean antecedent. 5.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that since petitioner is the husband of the deceased, therefore onus lies upon him and he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

6.

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

7.

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below within a period of four weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same would be considered by the court below in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T