Patna High Court - Orders

Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Tanti vs The State Of Bihar on 27 January, 2025

Author:
Harish Kumar

Bench:
Harish Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84231 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2022 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai
======================================================
Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Tanti, S/o- Harkhit Tanti, Village-Shadipur
Diyara, W.No-10, Ps-Balia, Dist-Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhanshu Bhushan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 27-01-2025
Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

petitioner and Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The application for grant of bail to the petitioner

who is in custody in connection with Balia P.S. Case No. 89 of

2022 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 302
,

304B
,
498A
,
,
120B
and
of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Based upon the written report the prosecution

alleges that the marriage of the daughter of the informant was

solemnized with the petitioner five years ago. On 30.03.2022, at

about 02:00pm, the petitioner has informed the informant that

some dispute has arisen between the petitioner and his wife and

thus, request has been made to her to materialize the same.

Despite the effort taken by the informant to contact her

daughter, she could not contact as her mobile phone came to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84231 of 2024(3) dt.27-01-2025

2/4

switched off. Soon thereafter, the informant alongwith other

family members reached at the matrimonial home of the victim,

but they did not find her. It is further alleged that the petitioner

alongwith other accused have killed the victim and her two

female children and left the home. Prior to the alleged

occurrence the deceased was subjected to demand of dowry.

4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

petitioner contended that admittedly even as per the narrations

made in the FIR the informant was informed on 30.03.2022 and

soon thereafter she rushed to the matrimonial home, but

surprisingly, the FIR has been instituted on 01.04.2022, after a

delay of three days. The falsity of the case is also writ large for

the simple reason that during the course of investigation it has

transpired that the two daughters of the victim has been yet

residing with their grand-mother. It is the contention of the

petitioner that in fact the victim has left her matrimonial home

without giving any information to anyone on account of a trifle.

The dead body of the victim has neither been recovered, nor her

trace out could be find out during the course of investigation

and, as such, there is no material to constitute any offence much

less under
Section 302
and
304B
of the Indian Penal Code. It is

lastly contended that the petitioner has been incarcerated since

18.07.2024, having absolutely fair antecedent and he undertakes
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84231 of 2024(3) dt.27-01-2025

3/4

before this Court that he will fully cooperate in the proceeding

of the Court.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits

that the petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased and his

complicity cannot be ruled out, as he himself admitted the dispute

between him and his wife, which resulting into causing her

disappearance. Moreover, there is a demand of dowry soon before

her disappearance and, as such, an offence of dowry death as

provided under
Section 304B
of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be

ruled out.

6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of

the parties and considering the written report not based on correct facts

of causing the death of two children; in as much there is no trace out of

the victim, whether alive or dead and the materials collected during the

course of investigation are primarily based on suspicion of the

complicity of the petitioner in the crime, coupled with the fair

antecedent, let the petitioner, named above, be released on bail on or

after framing of the charge from the Court below itself on furnishing

bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of

the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Balia P.S. Case No. 89 of

2022, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84231 of 2024(3) dt.27-01-2025

4/4

relatives of the petitioner with further conditions which are as

follows:-

(i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the

trial.

(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of

trial till disposal of the case.

(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or

intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial.

(iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates

without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be

cancelled.

(v) The court below shall verify the criminal

antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found

that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the

court below shall take immediate step for cancelling the bail

bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in

terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be delayed for this

purpose or in the name of verification.

(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-

U T