Patna High Court
Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied the petitioner's bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Kumar, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 108, 352, 351(2), 79 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, alleging that he was falsely implicated in the alleged suicide of a family who had taken a loan from him. The informant’s statement claimed that the petitioner, along with another person, had repeatedly abused and tortured the family to recover the loan, creating a situation that led to the family’s consumption of poison. The petitioner contended that the allegations were exaggerated, stemmed from a family land dispute, and that he was merely a creditor. The State and the informant argued that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to abetment of suicide. After considering the submissions, the court declined to grant bail, noting the seriousness of the allegations and the need for the petitioner to remain in custody until charges are framed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail pending trial for offences under the B.N.S., 2023.
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes abetment of suicide justifying denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 108, 3(5), 351(2), 352, 79
Subjects
- bail
- abatement of suicide
- loan dispute
- B.N.S. 2023
- preliminary hearing
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87548 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-322 Year-2025 Thana- GRIYAK District- Nalanda
======================================================
Ajay Kumar Son of Dhananjay Kumar @ Dhananjay Prasad Resident of
Village- Shikarpur, P.S.- Giriyak (Pawapuri) Nalanda, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Ram Lakhan Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 108, 352, 351(2), 79 and 3(5)
of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that he received an information on 18.07.2025, at 05.00
p.m., that some persons have consumed poison in an orchard near
Kali temple, accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence and
saw that five persons have consumed poison and the villagers have
taken the injured to the hospital. Further, at the place of
occurrence, Satyam Kumar, a 10 year old boy was also found, who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87548 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/4
was brought to the police station and he disclosed that the persons,
who consumed poison, are his family members. Further, the
S.H.O. came and recorded the statement of the injured Soni Devi
in his mobile at the hospital, who stated that they have a cloth shop
and for starting the shop, they had taken loan of Rs.3 lakhs from
Ajay Kumar (petitioner) and Rs.2 lakhs from Dharmendra Modi.
Further, the priest of Kali temple had introduced them to Ajay
Kumar and Dharmendra Modi and for the last one month, Ajay
Kumar and Dharmendra Modi used to come to her house and used
to abuse and torture them. Further, the priest had brought them to
Pawapuri and got them implicated and also disclosed that her elder
brother-in-law Ghanshyam Prasad got their land registered in the
name of his wife and his daughter-in-law, hence, out of frustration,
the family consumed poison. Further, two minor girls died during
the course of treatment.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant
case based on the statement of Soni Devi. It is further submitted
that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that in sum and substance, the allegation against the
petitioner is that he was introduced to the family by the priest of
Kali temple based on which he had given a loan of an amount of
Rs.3 lakhs and since the amount was not being returned, thus, it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87548 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/4
alleged that petitioner along with Dharmendra Modi used to
torture the family. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that Soni Devi
also disclosed that her elder brother-in-law Ghanshyam Prasad got
their land registered in the name of his wife and his daughter-in-
law and, thus, out of the frustration the family committed suicide.
It is also submitted that it might be a possibility that on account of
dispute in the family, the occurrence took place and the petitioner
and Dharmendra Modi came to be implicated for the reason that
they had initially given loan to the family for starting the cloth
business. It is further submitted that even presuming what has been
alleged is true without admitting then at best the allegation is that
petitioner and Dharmendra Modi were asking for their money
which they had loaned but then the allegation of torture and abuse
is exaggerated. It is reiterated and submitted that on account of
land dispute in the family, the family committed suicide. It is next
submitted that petitioner is in custody since 22.07.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposed the
prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant
submits that petitioner might not have committed the occurrence
but then allegation is of abetment as Soni Devi specifically stated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87548 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
4/4
that petitioner along with Dharmendra Modi used to come to their
house for seeking the loan amount and since they were not in a
position to return the amount as such they tortured and abused
which created condition conducive for committing the occurrence
of suicide, coupled with the fact that Ghanshyam Prasad also
cheated them.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court, for the
present, is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in
connection with Giriyak P.S. Case No. 322 of 2025 pending in the
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar
Sharif/Successor Court.
8. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
9. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.