Patna High Court
Mukesh Kumar@ Mukesh Kumar Yadav @ Mantu Yadav @ Mukesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S., 2023.
Summary
The petitioners, Mukesh Kumar and Sandhya Devi, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a dowry‑related case under Sections 85, 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, following the alleged suicide of their daughter‑in‑law. They argued that they have a clean record, are not eyewitnesses, and that the FIR contains only vague, omnibus allegations without specifying any dowry demand. The post‑mortem report indicated ante‑mortem hanging, supporting the claim of suicide rather than homicide. The State opposed the bail on the ground that the petitioners might abscond, while the petitioners assured cooperation with the investigation. Considering the petitioners' clean antecedent, the lack of direct evidence, and their assurance to cooperate, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. The bail may be cancelled if the investigating officer shows that the petitioners fail to cooperate.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case alleging dowry‑related torture and suicide.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 2, 3(5), 482, 80, 85
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 2, 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- suicide
- false implication
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68130 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2025 Thana- Marnga District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Mukesh Kumar@ Mukesh Kumar Yadav @ Mantu Yadav @ Mukesh Yadav
S/O Late Rajendra Prasad Yadav R/O Marnga Pashchim, P.O and P.S-
Maranga, Distt.- Purnea.
2. Sandhya Devi W/O Mukesh Kumar @ Mantu Yadav @ Mukesh Yadav R/O
Marnga Pashchim, P.O and P.S- Maranga, Distt.- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anurag Saurav
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 80 and
3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are a person with clean antecedent and petitioner
No.2 is a women and the informant alleges that her daughter
was married to Suraj on 07.05.2021, after marriage she lived
peacefully for an year, thereafter, the accused persons including
the petitioner started torturing her for dowry in form of cash, his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68130 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
2/5
daughter used to inform him about the torture being meted out
to her, but accused persons used to apologize, on 01.07.2025,
Suraj called and informed that his daughter has hanged herself,
accordingly he came to the P.O. and saw the dead body of his
daughter lying and it appeared that she was strangulated to
death, further the deceased had a child out of the wedlock, aged
about 3 years.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated
in the instant case being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
deceased. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation
as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that the informant is
not an eye witness to the occurrence and the entire allegation
hinges about suspicion and it was husband of the deceased, who
informed the informant that his daughter has committed suicide,
it is also submitted that informant alleges that the victim was
tortured for non-fulfillment of dowry demand in form of cash
but then the said allegation is very generic in nature, it is next
submitted that F.I.R. does not specify that as to what was being
demanded by the accused person in form of dowry, it is also
submitted that allegation against the petitioner is general and
omnibus in nature, it is also submitted that whenever any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68130 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
3/5
dispute arises in between the husband and wife and the
occurrence of a nature as alleged takes place, the entire family
members are implicated in a mechanical manner with general
and omnibus allegation and police also in mechanical manner
investigate. It is asserted and submitted that the petitioners are
staying seperately from their son and a representation to that
effect has been given to the Superintendent of Police to
investigate the case on the said issue also. It is also submitted
that normal conduct of an accused is to conceal evidence but
then had the petitioner been involved in the occurrence in that
event efforts would have made to dispose of the dead body with
a view to conceal evidence but then the dead body was lying in
the house where their son and victim were living, it is also
submitted that the body was sent to post-mortem wherein it was
recorded in the opinion “above-mentioned injuries were ante-
mortem and dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature due to
pressure and compression of neck by ligature material after
suspending the body.” And cause of death is recorded as
‘Asphyxia and venous congestion due to ante-mortem hanging’
and no external injuries were found on the body except ligature
mark.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68130 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
4/5
that ante-mortem hanging demonstrates that the victim was not
strangulated to death rather committed suicide. The learned
counsel for the petitioners further submits that no doubt the
death of the victim took place within 7 years of marriage but
then all death are not dowry death. At times the victims out of
anger with their husband commit suicide. It is also submitted
that the husband of the petitioner is in custody.
6. The learned counsel for the A.P.P. and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits
that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners
may abscond on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners submits that petitioners will not abscond rather
will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and the assurances given by learned counsel for the
petitioners that they will co-operate in the investigation and the
fact that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent, the Court is
inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
8. Let the petitioners, as named above, in the event of
their arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68130 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
5/5
Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Purnea, in connection with Maranga P.S. Case No. 229 of
2025, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
9. It is further made clear that if the investigating
officer of the case file an application before learned trial Court
bringing to its notice that petitioners, despite giving assurance to
this Court, are not cooperating in the investigation, in that event,
the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail-bond
of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
sanjeev/-
U T
Checking your session…