CR. MISC./47178/2026 of Vikash Singh @ Vikas Singh Vs The State of Bihar on 18 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

18-08-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ajay Thakur and learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The Investigating Officer of the case in compliance of the order dated 10.08.2026 is present in the Court.

3. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 180, 80 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that his daughter on 24.04.2022 was married to Nitish, at the time of marriage, bad habits of Nitish was concealed including the facts that brother of Nitish had committed suicide, further out of the wedlock, a girl child was born, thereafter accused persons including the petitioners started torturing the victim and started demanding dowry, further informant came to know that Nitish is addicted to online gambling and had lost money, further his son on two occasions on demand of Nitish credited an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 13,39,000/- in the account provided by Nitish, being fed up the informant brought the victim and her daughter back to her parental home on 02.08.2025, but torture continued, hence his daughter consumed poisons and ended her life.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, it is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that his daughter was married to Nitish on 24.04.2022, it is next submitted that it is also alleged that Nitish had bad habit of online gambling and since, he had lost money in gambling, as such, he was demanding money from the informant and his son, as such, his son on two occasions had provided money to Nitish in the account provided by him as recorded hereinabove, it is further submitted that as far as allegation of torture against the petitioner is alleged, it is submitted that the same is general and omnibus in nature, it is further submitted that mother-in-law of the informant is a nurse at PMCH at Dhanbad and her father-in-law also resides at Dhanbad and Nitish along with the victim were residing at Bengaluru, it is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no specific allegation of assault and torture is alleged against the petitioners, but then during the course of investigation, the informant and his side has tried to malign the character of the petitioner No. 1 that when the victim was at Dhanbad, the petitioner No. 1 intended to commit sexual offence in absence of petitioner No. 2, but then it is submitted that had petitioner No. 1 committed such an act, in that event, the same would have been disclosed in the FIR itself, it is also submitted that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that victim was brought back to her parental home along with the child by the informant on 02.08.2025 and the instant FIR came to be instituted on 17.03.2026 that is after more than seven months of the stay of the victim at her parental home, it is next submitted that had the victim committed suicide at her parental home soon after coming back from her matrimonial home perhaps a suspicion could have been cast that on account of assault and torture being meted out by the accused persons including the petitioners the victim committed suicide, but then the victim committed suicide after staying at her parental home for more than seven months which also casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution that whether it was on account of torture being meted out by petitioners and other accused persons, the victim committed suicide or was not well taken care of at her parental home which led the victim to take the extreme step of ending her life.

6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that informant has provided him with a recorded message of talk of petitioner No. 2 with the informant, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that such voice recorded message cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of considering anticipatory bail in absence of certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.

7. On query of the Court from the Investigating Officer that as to whether any voice recorded message has been provided to him or not, on which the Investigating Officer submits that the voice recorded message was provided to him yesterday, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that when FIR was instituted on 17.03.2026 why the voice recorded message was not provide to the IO immediately.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court also heard the recording of talk in between petitioner No. 2 and the victim in open Court and after hearing the talk in between petitioner No. 2 and the victim, it appeared that petitioner No. 2 being mother-in-law was trying to convince the informant to come back and there was no element of threat in the conversation. It is further submitted that even allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and omnibus in nature, it is next submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case is not investigating the case in its correct perspective, it is further submitted that no doubt the death of the victim took place within seven years of marriage, but then all death are not dowry deaths and specially when the victim committed suicide at her parental home and that too after staying for seven months. It is also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners will not abscond rather will co-operate in the investigation to prove their innocence.

9. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their 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) each 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 Narhat P.S. Case No. 113 of 2026 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

11. However, it is made clear that, in that event, if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned Trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioners despite giving assurance to this Court are not co-operating in the investigation, in that event, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.

12. The personal appearance of the Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with.

13. Thus, this application stands allowed.

Nitesh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T