Rameshwar Bhagat Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandra Shekhar Anand For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 07-05-2025

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶12

This is the first regular bail application of the petitioner seeking his regular bail in connection with Kudhani P.S. Case No. 225/2024, registered for the offence under Section 108, 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanita (BNS) Act.

¶13

In this case the name of the deceased is Renu Devi. She was the first wife of the present applicant. It is alleged that on 02.12.2024, the present applicant along with his second wife came to the house of the deceased Renu Devi. They abused the deceased and at that time present applicant instigated the deceased Renu Devi to commit suicide . On being instigated by the applicant she poured Kerosine oil in

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 27669 of 2025(2) dt.07-05-2025 2/3

¶15

her body and got fired. She was taken into the hospital, thereafter on 04.12.2024, she recorded her fardbeyan. During course of treatment on 08.12.2024, she died.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is then also the alleged offence is not made out against the petitioner. The main ingredient of the offence i.e. instigation is missing. Lastly, he submits that applicant is an old person aged about 74 years and in custody since 18.12.2024, therefore, on these grounds it is prayed that he may be granted benefit of bail.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and further considering the material available on record and considering the fact that applicant is aged about 74 years, I am of the view that the petitioner should be enlarged on bail.

¶19