Patna High Court
Naresh RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, finding no specific case against them and noting that the principal accused were already in custody.
Summary
The petitioners, Naresh Rai and his three daughters‑in‑law, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a murder case (Gangabridge PS Case No.149 of 2025) concerning the death of Nishu Kumari, who was married to their son Kundan Kumar. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners conspired with the husband and other family members to murder Nishu Kumari and dispose of her body in the Ganga River. The petitioners argued that no specific allegation was made against them, that the mother‑in‑law and the husband were already in judicial custody, and that they were caring for the child of the deceased. The State opposed the bail. Considering the lack of specific charges against the petitioners and the custody of the primary accused, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners despite the ongoing murder investigation.
- Whether the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners justifies the grant of bail under Section 438 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 238, 3(5), 80
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 S. 1
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- family members liability
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11468 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2025 Thana- GANGABRIDGE District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Naresh Rai S/o Late Lala Rai R/o Village - Diwan Tok, P.S - Gangabridge,
District - Vaishali
2. Sinki Kumari @ Laxmi Kumari D/o Naresh Rai R/o Village - Diwan Tok,
P.S - Gangabridge, District - Vaishali
3. Nishu Kumari @ Nisha Kumari @ Rinki Kumari D/o Naresh Rai R/o
Village - Diwan Tok, P.S - Gangabridge, District - Vaishali
4. Chhoti Kumari D/o Naresh Rai R/o Village - Diwan Tok, P.S - Gangabridge,
District - Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 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 Gangabridge P.S. Case No.149 of 2025, F.I.R
dated 18.09.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on 17.09.2025, is
that the informant’s sister, Nishu Kumari, was married to
Kundan Kumar, son of Naresh Rai, on 05.05.2023 according to
Hindu rites and customs, and at the time of marriage, sufficient
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11468 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
gifts including jewellery, clothes, utensils, and furniture worth
about Rs.3 lakhs, along with Rs.2 lakhs in cash towards
marriage expenses, were given. It is alleged that after the
marriage, the husband and in-laws of the deceased began
subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty while demanding
an additional sum of Rs.4 lakhs for the purchase of a four-
wheeler. The informant further alleged that on 16.09.2025 at
about 10:00 P.M., he received information from villagers that
his sister had been killed and her body had been thrown into the
Ganga River, and upon making inquiries at her matrimonial
home, he came to learn that Kundan Kumar, his family
members, and the petitioners had, in furtherance of a conspiracy,
murdered Nishu Kumari and caused disappearance of the dead
body.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioner No.1 is father-in-law of the deceased and petitioner
Nos.2 to 4, are married sisters-in-law of the deceased and there
is nothing specific against these petitioners while the mother-in-
law was taken into judicial custody and she is on bail and it has
further been submitted that the husband of the deceased, who is
also under judicial custody and is still languishing in jail. It has
next been submitted that out of the wedlock between the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11468 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
deceased and her husband, namely, Kundan Rai, there is one
child aged about one year, who is staying in the family along
with them and are being looked after by the petitioner.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that there is nothing specific against these petitioners and the
mother-in-law and husband of the deceased have already been
taken into judicial custody, while the husband is still languishing
in jail. 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 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Vaishali at Hajipur, in
connection with Gangabridge P.S. Case No.149 of 2025, subject
to the 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11468 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
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
Checking your session…