In Ashutosh Kumar @ Ashutosh vs. The State of Bihar (2025), the Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih passed a 5-page long order August 21, 2025 granting anticipatory bail to the appellant in anticipation of his arrest. The Court allowed the appeal against the Patna High Court's impugned judgment and order dated May 12, 2025, which had rejected the appellant’s prayer for bail in anticipation of arrest. The appellant figured as an accused in FIR No.131/2024 registered at Police Station Rajepur, District Motihari, Bihar under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court recorded: "It is not in dispute that the appellant has joined investigation in terms of the earlier order of this Court.'' The earlier order dated on May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court passed an order which recorded that the petitioner submitted that the victim died by suicide in her paternal home. It issued notice. The order reads: "Till the next date of hearing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with FIR No. 131/2024 registered at Police Station Rajepur, District Motihari, Bihar, subject to his joining investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating officer."
In its order dated August 21, the Supreme Court observed: ''In such view of the matter and having regard to the facts and circumstances, we do not find custodial interrogation of the appellant to be required; thus, the appeal deserves acceptance and the appellant may be admitted to an order for release on bail in anticipation of arrest. 7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order. 8. It is directed that in the event of the appellant being arrested, he shall be released on bail by the arresting/investigating officer/trial court on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court. 9. Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to any police officer or to the court. 10. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail to the appellant in anticipation of arrest will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.''
Justice Sinha's order dated May 12, 2025 recorded that on June 22, 2024, at about 8 PM, informant's daughter (deceased) Neha Kumari, received a call from her sasural regarding demand of Rs. 20 lakhs and a four-wheeler as dowry. Thereafter, she went inside the room and locked herself. The informant broke the door and went inside and saw that her daughter was vomiting. He took her to hospital where she was declared dead. It was also alleged that on June 21, 2024, the petitioner and his family members assaulted the informant's daughter brutally and she was brought and left at her parental home at East Champaran. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the petitioner about two years back and there was a continuous demand of dowry from the petitioner and his family members. The senior counsel for the petitioner had submitted that petitioner was falsely implicated in this case due to oblique motive. The victim was working as a teacher and out of emotional breakdown and different reasons, she has committed suicide at her parental home. There was no evidence that any phone call was made by the side of the petitioner. The counsel for the informant as well as state, submitted that within two years of marriage, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide due to continuous demand of dowry by the petitioner and others. One day prior to the death of the deceased on June 21, 2024, she was brutally assaulted and was brought at her parental home. The accused persons left her at her parental home and on June 22, 2024, i.e. on the date of occurrence, the deceased got a phone call from the petitioner's side demanding dowry which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. All along, she was mentally and physically tortured for demand of dowry. The counsel for the state referred to the case diary and submitted that in para 9 and 10, witnesses had said that after receiving the phone call from the petitioner and his family members, the deceased used to start crying. There was prima facie evidence against the petitioner regarding demand of dowry and torture of the deceased by the petitioner and others.
Justice Sinha observed: ''Just before the occurrence on 21.06.2024, the deceased was brutally assaulted and was sent to her parental home. In close proximity of time, there is demand, torture and unnatural death of informant’s daughter at her parental home within two years of her marriage. The nature of death in such case whether it is suicidal, homicidal or accidental is not important. There is presumption against the accused persons under Section 113A, 113B of the Evidence Act. The offence is serious in nature and the petitioner is husband, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. This application is, accordingly, rejected." Supreme Court has reversed this order.
