IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7497 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2025 Thana- TELHARA District- Nalanda ======================================================

1. Ramashray Prasad S/O Ramchandra Prasad R/O Village- Mehandichak, P.S-

Telhara, Dist.- Nalanda.

2. Rajesh Kumar @ Guddu Kumar @ Langra S/O Ramashray Prasad R/O Village- Mehandichak, P.S- Telhara, Dist.- Nalanda.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Birendra Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

3 24-02-2026 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Telhara Police Station Case No. 178 of 2025 dated 06.10.2025, disclosing the offence under Sections 80, 61, 238, and 3(5) of the BNS lodged by the informant, Munni Yadav.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged that his daughter was married to one Mitranjan Kumar, son of this petitioner as per the Hindu rites and only after four years of marriage, his daughter has been done to death due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry by her in-laws including these petitioners. Accordingly, the present FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is father-in-law and petitioner no.2 is elder brother-in-law (Bhainsur) of the deceased respectively, nothing specific is said to have been alleged by the informant against these petitioners. The deceased has given birth to a child/son out of the said wedlock who is being brought up and taken care of by petitioner no.1. He further submits that the husband of the deceased is already under judicial custody. The petitioners being father-in-law and brother-in-law have got no role in the death of informant’s daughter. The cause of death as mentioned in the postmortem report is that she died of asphyxia due to strangulation.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the informant and learned APP vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners by submitting that the nature of allegations levelled against these petitioners are very heinous and hence, they do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the fact that nothing specific has been alleged against these petitioners, husband of the deceased is already under judicial custody and the petitioners are father- in-law and brother-in-law respectively, this Court is inclined to grant the petitioners the privilege of anticipatory bail.

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

8. Let the petitioners, 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate -1^st , Hilsa, Nalanda 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 the bail (iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which t