Dismissed¶21

Krishnandan Kumar @ Krishna Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Jun 2026CR. MISC./37482/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Krishnandan Kumar @ Krishna Kumar v. The State of Bihar; Patna High Court; Satyavrat Verma, J.; Cr. Misc. No. 37482 of 2026; order dated 18-06-2026; Pipra PS Case No. 415 of 2025, East Champaran; Sections 80 and 238, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; suspicious death of wife on 11-9-2025; cremation of body without postmortem; death within seven years of marriage; informant not an eye-witness; clean antecedents plea rejected.

What did the court decide?

The Court found merit in the learned APP's submissions and was not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. ¶20

Krishnandan Kumar @ Krishna Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37482 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-415 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRA District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Krishnandan Kumar @ Krishna Kumar S/O Late Mahendra Prasad R/O Village- Khairimal, P.S- Pipra, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Eashita Raj, Adv Ms.Priyanka Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Gulnar Begum, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶9

2 18-06-2026

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Eashit

¶11

Raj and learned A.P.P. for the State, Ms. Gulnar Begum.

¶12

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Pipra PS Case No. 415 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that his sister was married to the petitioner about four years back and his sister’s mental health was not stable as such the petitioner used to demand money, on account of which his sister suffered from mental stress, next alleges that his sister on 11-9-2025 died under suspicious condition and on information

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37482 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026 2/3

¶15

when the informant went to the place of occurrence the dead body was already cremated.

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being husband has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, who is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant himself alleges that his sister was having mental health problem and thus was not stable. It is further submitted that though it is alleged that dowry was being demanded but then from perusal of the allegation, it would manifest that the same is general and omnibus in nature as the informant does not disclose what was being demanded in dowry by the petitioner and his family members from the informant and his family members. It is also submitted that since the victim was having mental health issues as such it might be a possibility that she committed suicide.

¶17

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that victim was married to the petitioner about four years back and the occurrence took place within seven years of marriage, as such presumption in law is also against the husband and his family

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37482 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026 3/3

¶19

members. It is next submitted that the informant did not try to falsely implicate the petitioner rather in the FIR stated that his sister was having mental health issues but then it is also alleged that she died under suspicious condition. It is also submitted that if the petitioner and his family members were not involved in the occurrence, in that event the petitioner ought to have ensured that postmortem of the dead body is carried out for ascertaining the cause of death but then the same was not done which amply demonstrates that the body was cremated with an intent to conceal the evidence regarding death of the victim. It is reiterated and submitted that the death of the victim took place within seven years of marriage.

¶20

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds merit in the submission of learned APP as such is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

¶22

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶23

Sumit/-

¶24

U T

Krishnandan Kumar @ Krishna Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnandan Kumar @ Krishna Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vakil Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Jitendra Dhangad @ Jitendr Dhangad Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Raja Ram Sahani @ Pandit Jee @ Raja Raman Sahani Vs The State Of Bihar