Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89636 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2025 Thana- ANTI District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.
Chandan Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar @ Suresh Yadav R/o Village - Tineri, P.S - Anti, District - Gaya 2.
Roopa Kumari @ Rupa Kumari D/o Suresh Kumar @ Suresh Yadav R/o Village - Tineri, P.S - Anti, District - Gaya 3.
Prity Kumari D/o Suresh Kumar @ Suresh Yadav R/o Village - Tineri, P.S - Anti, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Anti P.S. Case No.69 of 2025, F.I.R dated 01.06.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 80, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, based on a written complaint, stating that the informant's sister was married to Vikash Kumar on 16.07.2024. Soon after the marriage, she was allegedly subjected to assault and harassment by her husband and in-laws for dowry. The informant claims that whenever he
2/4 visited her, she informed him about the physical abuse. He was also allegedly assaulted when he refused to fulfill the dowry demands. On 01.06.2025 at about 2:30 A.M., the informant received news of his sister's death. Upon reaching her matrimonial home, he found no one present and noticed a fire burning on the village outskirts. There, he saw a cremation taking place without any family members present. Later, women at another house informed him that his sister had died and had already been cremated without informing her parental family. The informant alleges that the cremation was conducted secretly behind their back.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 are brother-in-law and sister-in-laws respectively and the petitioner No.1 is married and living separately while both the sister-in-laws are un-married. It has next been submitted that no single complaint of harassing was ever been made against these petitioners and after the death of the deceased, due information was given to the family members of the deceased and the informant along with his family members were all along present during the cremation process. The petitioners have clean antecedent. It has further been submitted that during the course of investigation, it has
3/4 transpired that the deceased was having an affair and owing to some differences, suicide is said to have been committed and the petitioner's complicity with the death cannot be attributed to the petitioners.
5. Learned APP for the State, though opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that no single complaint of harassing was ever been made against these petitioners and the informant along with his family members were all along present during the cremation process and the petitioners have clean antecedent. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Gaya, in connection with Anti P.S. Case No.69 of 2025, subject to the
4/4 conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) sharun/- U T