IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8858 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-159 Year-2025 Thana- BELAGANJ District- Gaya ======================================================

Sidnath Sharma @ Sidnath Singh S/O Jitendra Singh @ Jitendra Kumar R/O Village- Kanchanpur, Police Station- Belaganj, District- Gaya (GayaJee).

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aryan Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anish Chandra, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

2 17-02-2026 Heard Mr. Aryan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Belaganj Police Station Case No. 159 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025, disclosing the offence under Sections 80(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS lodged by the informant, Rejesh Sharma.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged that his niece was married to one Pankaj Kumar @ Sudhanshi Kumar on 12.03.2023 according to Hindu rites. It is further alleged that the niece of the informant, subsequently, was eliminated by the petitioner along with other accused persons due to non fulfillment of the dowry. Accordingly, the present FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of he being father-in-law of the deceased. Learned counsel, referring to the allegations levelled in the FIR, submits that the petitioner is father-in-law and there is nothing specific against this petitioner while allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It has next been submitted that the petitioner being father-in-law has got no concerned with day-to-day affairs and it is purely a personal dispute between the husband and wife and the husband has been taken into judicial custody. He further submits that the petitioner has got clean antecedent and is ready to abide by the conditions as imposed by the Court, if he is granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that due to non fulfillment of dowry a young lady has been made to sleep for ever and the complicity of this petitioner being father-in-law cannot be ruled out. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that nothing specific has been alleged against this petitioner, the husband of the deceased has already been taken into judicial custody, he has got clean antecedent, this Court is inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. This application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.

8. Let the petitioner, named above, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gayajee in connection with aforesaid Police Station Case subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023, as well as the following conditions:-

(i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of