Kamleshwari Yadav @ Bhagat Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mayank Bilochan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 10-02-2026

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶14

learned APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 238, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case, but the said case was a complaint case and is in custody since 24.10.2025. It is next submitted that informant alleges that his daughter was married to Rahul in the year 2024 and at the time of marriage, the informant by way of gift had given Rs. 6 Lakhs along with a motorcycle and had spent an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on food and other articles, it is next alleged that after marriage, the named accused persons were demanding dowry and on non-fulfillment

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91829 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026 2/3

¶18

of the demand, the victim was tortured. It is further alleged that on 2-2-2025, the informant received an information that his daughter is ill, accordingly he reached the place of occurrence, but found the house locked and came to know that the accused had fled and the dead body of the deceased was disposed of.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and is not related with the husband of the deceased in any manner rather is a co-villager. It is next submitted that name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Ramashish Yadav (father-in-law of the deceased) wherein he disclosed that the petitioner also participated in the cremation. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that since the petitioner is a co-villager, as such he was not even aware about the occurrence and on request of Ramashish and his family members, he along with other villagers participated in the occurrence. It is thus submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting, then the petitioner is not alleged to have participated in the occurrence of killing the deceased. It is next submitted that Ramashish Yadav has been granted the privilege of regular bail by a learned Co-ordinate Bench by an order dated 3-9- 2025 in Cr. Misc No. 43796 of

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91829 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026 3/3

¶21

It is further submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to prove his innocence.

¶22

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the bail application of the petitioner.

¶23

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, is directed to be released on 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 Tetarhat Police Station Case No. 19 of 2025.

¶24

Accordingly, the instant bail application is

¶25

allowed.

¶26

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶27

Rishabh/-

¶28

U T

Kamleshwari Yadav @ Bhagat Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamleshwari Yadav @ Bhagat Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikki Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Noor Ali Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Kasim Vs The State of Bihar

Kamini Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Dharmendra Modi @ Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Kumar Modi @ Dhamendra Kumar @ Dhamendra Modi Vs The State of Bihar

Bindeshwari Yadav Vs The State of Bihar