Patna High Court
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Rai @ Santosh RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Santosh Kumar petitioned for anticipatory bail after learning that an FIR had been lodged against him under Section 80/3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, alleging his involvement in the death of his wife. The informant claimed that after their marriage the petitioner’s family demanded a buffalo, leading to the victim’s torture and eventual suicide by hanging on 1 September 2024. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, was residing in Delhi at the time, and that the post‑mortem report indicated death by asphyxia due to hanging, suggesting suicide. The State contended that, as the husband, the petitioner bore a duty to protect his wife and could be held responsible for creating conditions that led to her suicide. After considering the submissions, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding the petition insufficient to merit such relief.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the FIR.
- Whether the petitioner can be held liable for the alleged suicide of his wife under Section 80/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 80/3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- suicide
- marital duty
- false implication
- B.N.S. 2023
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89305 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2024 Thana- MANIYARI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Rai @ Santosh Ray S/O Late Satyananrayan Ray
R/O Village- Jagdishpur, P.S.- Maniyari, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dr. Indiwar Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 04-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State .
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offence punishable under Section 80/3(5) of B.N.S.,
2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the
petitioner on 14.12.2019, after marriage, the accused persons
started demanding a buffalo and on account of non-fulfillment
of demand, the victim was tortured, it is next alleged that the
husband of the victim was living in Delhi and on the date of
occurrence, he instigated his family members against the victim,
further on 01.09.2024, he received an information that his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89305 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
2/3
daughter has been killed, accordingly, the informant came to the
place of occurrence and came to know that the dead body had
been taken to the cremation ghat, accordingly reached the
crematorium when he saw police vehicle parked and dead body
of the victim was taken for post-mortem.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in
the instant case by the informant, it is further submitted that
form perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would
manifest that the same does not inspire confidence for the
reason that the date of occurrence is 01.09.2024 and F.I.R. came
to be instituted on 13.09.2024 when informant alleges that she
had gone to the place of occurrence on 01.09.2024 itself, it is
also submitted that petitioner was staying in Delhi and the
informant alleges that on instigation of the petitioner, his family
members might have committed the occurrence, it is next
submitted that from post-mortem reports records, the cause of
death as asphyxia as a result of hanging, which amply
demonstrates that the victim commuted suicide.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
for the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant submits that what
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89305 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
3/3
is not disputed rather stands admitted is that victim died. It is
also submitted that the victim died within seven years of
marriage as such in law also, the presumption is against the
husband and the family members, it is next submitted that
petitioner might not be present at the place of occurrence when
the occurrence is alleged to have taken but then petitioner being
husband made conditions conducive for the victim to take the
extreme step of ending her life, it is also submitted that it is the
primary duty of the husband to ensure well being of his wife and
if the wife was being tortured in his absence by his family
members, on account of which she committed suicide, in that
event also the responsibility of the petitioner as husband cannot
be ignored.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
and taking into consideration the submission made by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not
inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
sanjeev/-
U T
Checking your session…