Patna High Court
Awadhesh Prasad @ Abdhesh Prasad @ Awadhesh ChaurasiaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Awadhesh Prasad was arrested on 23 November 2025 in connection with a case alleging his involvement in the suicide of Vikram Kumar, the son of informant Gayatri Devi, and charged under Sections 108, 3 and 5 of the BNS. The informant claimed that Prasad, along with Vinita Kumari and Shankar Kumar, conspired to cheat her son out of his invested money, leading to his death. The petitioner pleaded that the allegations were fabricated, he had a clean antecedent, and the FIR was based on a personal dispute rather than any criminal act. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges. The court, after considering the circumstances, granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged conspiracy leading to suicide under Sections 108, 3 and 5 of the BNS
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a prima facie case justifying continued detention
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 108, 3, 5
Subjects
- bail
- suicide
- conspiracy
- partnership dispute
- criminal antecedent
- BNS
- Section 108
- Section 3
- Section 5
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9348 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2025 Thana- KURSAILA District- Katihar
======================================================
Awadhesh Prasad @ Abdhesh Prasad @ Awadhesh Chaurasia S/o Late Ramlal
Prasad R/o Village- Gopalpur, P.S- Gogri, Dist- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Neha Sarika, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Ajeet Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Diwakar Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
23.11.2025 in connection with Kursela P.S. Case No. 199 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 3 and 5 of
BNS.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows: -
(a) That the informant namely Gayatri Devi, stated in
his written application before the SHO, Kursela that her son
namely Vikram Kumar started Maa Kamakhya Fashion Show
Room, Purnia in partnership with Vinita Kumari during festive
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9348 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/5
season of Durga Puja 2023. It was doing good business. It is
further submitted that during November December 2024, Vinita
Kumari and her husband Shankar Kumar started putting
pressure upon her son Vikram to invest more capital in the said
showroom.
(b) That it has been further stated that the son of the
informant Vikram Kumar invested Rs. 20,00000/- (Twenty
Lakhs) Rupees by mortgaging his house in the bank. After some
time, son of the informant told her that Vinita Kumari and her
husband Shankar Kumar were threatening him to throw out of
the partnership agreement. It is further alleged by the informant
that when her son demanded back his money which he invested
in the partnership firm, but both of them avoided to pay back.
The matter was also reported to MP Purnia who directed them
return the money and settle the issue.
(c) That it is further alleged that in the last of
August 2025, Shankar Kumar ousted her son from the said
showroom, due to which her son joined another shop for his
livelihood in the nearby area. Due to expulsion from the
Partnership, son of the informant started living in stress and was
trying to recover his invested money.
(d) That it has been further alleged by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9348 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/5
informant that, on 04-09-2025 at about 9 A.M, her son after
taking meal told her that he was going to resolve the dispute of
account with his partner. After sometime, the informant also
followed her son to the showroom. When she reached there, she
could not find her son there. Petitioner was present there. He
scolded her and asked her to get out. The informant tried to
contact her son on his mobile but could not succeed.
(e) That it has been further submitted by the
informant, that after sometime her son called her and told her
that Vinita Kumari and Shankar Kumar replied him that there
was no due against them and they would not return him any
amount and clearly told her son to do whatever he could do. The
informant told her son to return her son back home but he didn't
return.
(f) That it has been stated by the informant, on the
same day in the evening she came to know through social
media, his son's Bullet Motorcycle was found at Kursela Bridge
and then kept in Kursela police station premises. The informant
further added that her relatives went there for confirmation and
came to know that her son Vikram committed suicide by
jumping from Kursela Bridge and could not be recovered even
after best efforts of S.D.R.F. in the light of aforesaid facts the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9348 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
4/5
informant expressed her faith that Vinita Kumari, her Husband
Shankar Kumar and her father Awadhesh Chaurasiya
(petitioner) conspired to cheat her son's invested money and
compelled him to commit suicide.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and the allegation as alleged in
the FIR is forged and fabricated and the petitioner has not
committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the FIR it
appears that son of the informant has committed suicide himself
and petitioner has no role at all in the present occurrence and he
has been made an accused in the present case based on previous
dispute between the parties and police after investigation has
submitted charge-sheet and petitioner is in custody since
23.11.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand,
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
let the petitioner, above named, 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 CJM,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9348 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
5/5
Katihar in connection with Kursela P.S. Case No. 199 of 2025,
subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…