CR. MISC./8241/2026 of Kush Kumar @ Kush Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar on 19 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

19-08-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Swarnima and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 351(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a young boy aged about 19 years and the informant alleges that his son from college had come home on the eve of Holi and disclosed that his colleague Mansi priya tortures him mentally for performing marriage and even sends obscene messages on his mobile and threatened that if he will not marry her, she will make his life miserable with the help of students of the college and boys of the village. It is next alleged that on 24.03.2025, the informant was informed by the police that his son has committed suicide, thus alleges that his son committed suicide on account of torture meted out by Mansi Priya and others.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and the thrust of the allegation is against Mansi priya. It is next submitted that during the course of investigation, a video of the deceased was recovered as incorporated at Para 26 of the case diary. It is next submitted that the deceased before committing suicide, had made a video wherein he had named the petitioner also as one of his tormentor at the behest of Mansi Priya and also that Manish Kumar along with Kundan had assaulted him a day prior causing injury on the body. It is further submitted that the postmortem reports specifically records that there is no external injury on the body of the deceased. It is reiterated and submitted that thrust of the allegation is against Mansi, but then police after interrogating her allowed her to accompany her parents and brother. It is further submitted that from the video it also manifests that deceased had recorded that he was in a relationship with Mansi Priya. It is next submitted that from perusal of Para 26 of the case diary, it would manifest that the deceased prior to his death in the video had recorded that he was in a relationship with Mansi for the last one year and she was cheating, but then in the FIR, it is alleged that deceased disclosed to the informant that Mansi Priya was pressurizing him for marriage which does not appear to be a correct fact. It is further submitted that since Mansi was in a relationship with the deceased and the relationship soured and Mansi was not interested in marrying the deceased, hence he committed suicide. It is also submitted that Kundan Kumar had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 8745 of 2026 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 23.02.2026 passed by a learned Coordinate Bench. It is further submitted that case of the petitioner if not akin is on a similar footing.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 Vishambharpur P.S. Case No. 57 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

7. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.

rajesh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T