SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4104

PATNA HIGH COURT
PURNNEDU SINGH, J
Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Akela @ Mukesh Akela – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar & Anr. – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89319 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Manoj Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Ranjan Sahay, Mr. Mohammad Sufyan

Granting of pre-arrest bail depends on the specific allegations against the petitioner and evidence regarding the nature of the charges.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the BNS for allegations of dowry torture following a marriage in 2019. The court noted that general allegations were made and referenced a previous bail grant for a co-accused, which is not applicable here. The informant's counsel argued against bail based on the serious nature of the accusations, especially in light of a prior FIR lodged by the deceased. The court decided to obtain the case diary and post-mortem report for further evaluation before reassessing the bail application on February 11, 2026.

2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Ranjan Sahay, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 1106 of 2025, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the BNS .

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the marriage of the sister of the informant was solemnized with the brother of the petitioner, namely, Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Roshan, in the year 2019. Soon after marriage, the husband of the sister of the informant along with his family members had started subjecting the sister of the informant to various sorts of torture due to non-

fulfillment of demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. Co-accused Shakuntala Devi has been granted pre-arrest bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.01.2026 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 89695 of 2025.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submitted that the petitioner don't deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail considering the very nature of allegation made in the FIR, as well as, the fact that immediately before death, the sister of the informant had lodged an FIR on 22.12.2024 being Danapur P.S. Case No. 542 of 2024 against her husband and his family members and in light of several decision of the Apex Court, petitioner don't deserve to be released on bail and the present bail application is fit to be dismissed.

6. Considering the nature of allegation and no FIR having been lodged by the petitioner, who has admitted himself to be the elder brother of the husband of the deceased, giving information about the death of the deceased, I find it proper to call for up-to-date legible carbon copy/xerox copy of case diary along with post-mortem report in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 1106 of 2025 from the Court of learned A.C.J.M. 1, Danapur /court concerned.

7. Re-notify the present bail application on

11.02.2026.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top