IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57457 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2024 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1. Rina Devi @ Rina Kumari Wife of Sukesh Kumar Resident of Village - Kaithi, P.S. - Chautham, District - Khagaria 2. Boudhu Singh Son of Late Chamaklal Singh Resident of Village - Kaithi, P.S. - Chautham, District - Khagaria 3. Guriya Devi Wife of Amit Kumar Resident of Village - Chaidha Railway Halt, P.S. - Maheshkhunt, District - Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amar Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate Ms. Ayushi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pushpa Sinha.1, APP For the Inforomant : Mr. Jai Kishor Poddar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10 19-08-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 34 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that his sister(Mala Devi) was married to Sukesh, further Sukesh performed his second marriage with Rina (petitioner No.1) with the help of accused persons, it is next alleged that accused persons tired to oust to Mala from her matrimonial home, but she stayed back, further Sukesh on 03.04.2024 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57457 of 2024(10) dt.19-08-2026 2/5 informed that Mala is traceless since 31.03.2024, accordingly the informant complained to the Sarpanch and tried to search his sister, but the victim could not be found, thus alleges that his sister has been killed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, it is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant who is brother of the victim alleges that Sukesh on 03.04.2024 informed that Mala is traceless since 31.03.2024, it is next submitted that Mala was married to Sukesh about 12 years back and she did not know how to cook and was also not mentally sound, it is further submitted that earlier also Mala had left her house, but then came back, it is also submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire allegation hinges around suspicion, it is further submitted that during the course of investigation the statement of independent witness, Parmanand Singh and Ranjit was recorded at Paras 3 and 4 of the case diary and they stated that they have come to know that victim did not know how to cook and was dimwit and the mother-in-law of the victim used to cook food and give to her, It is also submitted that petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57457 of 2024(10) dt.19-08-2026 3/5 No.3 is married sister-in-law(nanad) of the deceased while petitioner No. 1 is second wife of Sukesh and petitioner No. 2 is father of Sukesh. It is submitted that petitioner No. 3 does not stay with Sukesh, Rina and her parents. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that Sukesh on 03.04.2024 informed that Mala is traceless, since 31.03.2024, that is, as such, information regarding disappearance of Mala was given after three days, it is also submitted that Sukesh instead of informing the informant about disappearance of Mala ought to have instituted an FIR so that the police could have started the investigation, but then that was not done which casts an aspersion on the conduct of Sukesh that as to whether Mala disappeared or she was killed. It is also submitted that though it has been submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that marriage of Sukesh with Mala was performed 12 years back and Mala was dimwit and did not know how to cook and at times used to leave the house and after sometime used to come back, but then in these 12 years of marriage, no case ever came to be instituted from Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57457 of 2024(10) dt.19-08-2026 4/5 the side of Sukesh or his family members, it is next submitted that after Sukesh performed his second marriage with Rina with the help of the accused persons including the petitioners, thereafter, the occurrence took place which also points to the fact that some untoward occurrence might have taken place and it does not appear probable that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who stay with Sukesh were unaware of the occurrence, it is further submitted that for the last two years, the victim could not be traced and the investigation is continuing and if privilege of anticipatory is granted, the petitioners may try to tamper with the evidence, but then fairly submits that petitioner No. 3 is married (sister-in-law) and thus does not stay with Sukesh and his parents and Rina. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner No. 3, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Chautham P.S. Case No. 110 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57457 of 2024(10) dt.19-08-2026 5/5 7. The Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. nitesh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T