IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69805 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2025 Thana- PANCHRUKHI District- Siwan ======================================================

Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Yadav S/o Ram Naressh Yadav R/o Village -

Laheji, P.S - Pachrukhi, M.H Nagar, District - Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sunita Devi W/o Brij Kumar Yadav R/o - Bibi Ke Bangara, P.S - Barahariya, District - Siwan ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

3 25-02-2026 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 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 13.05.2025 and the informant alleges that her daughter was married to petitioner on 09.12.2023. It is further alleged that after marriage, the accused persons including the petitioner started torturing her for dowry. Further, the victim was also ousted from her matrimonial home but then on 18.01.2025 she was taken back from her parental home to her matrimonial home. Further, on 03.03.2025, the informant received an information from an unknown person that the victim is being assaulted, accordingly, the brother-in-law of the informant went to the house of the accused persons and made them understand and thereafter the situation normalized but, on 05.03.2025, the informant came to know that her daughter has been killed, accordingly, she reached the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of her daughter lying with mark of injury on her head, face and body.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, being the husband, has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that the informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It is next submitted that as far as demand of dowry and torture is alleged, the same is general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that informant herself alleges that on 03.03.2025 she came to know that her daughter is being assaulted, accordingly, she sent her brother-in-law who came to the house of the victim and pacified the matter. It is further submitted that had the situation been serious on 03.03.2025 in that event the brother-in-law of the informant would have taken the victim back to her parental home but then that was not done which amply demonstrates that the dispute which had arisen was normal wear and tear of life.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that what is not in dispute, rather stands admitted is that the deceased died within seven years of marriage and the presumption in law is against the husband of the deceased and his family members. It is further submitted that no doubt, informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence but then her daughter died. It is next submitted that the FIR itself discloses that on 03.03.2025 the informant was informed by an unknown person that the victim is being tortured/assaulted by the accused persons based on which she sent her brother-in-law for pacifying the issue and it was only after the brother-in-law reached the place of occurrence that the issue was pacified. It is also submitted that it is not possible in all cases to bring back the girl to her parental home. It is further submitted that the de