Ravi Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9915 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2024 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ravi Kumar Gupta Son of Suresh Prasad Gupta @ Suresh Prasad Resident of Village and P.S. - Sursand, District - Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajan, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P.

For the Informant :

Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate Mr. Hemant Ray, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 14-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Kudhani P.S. Case No. 212 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. As per allegation, marriage of daughter of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner on 22.05.2023, customary presents according to the affording to the informant capacity was given to the matrimonial inmates. The petitioner developed illicit relationship with another girl. He used to torture the deceased for demand of car in dowry and brother of the deceased, Anand Raj has sent Rs. 50,000/- in Bank Account of the petitioner but according to the allegation, he strangulated his wife to death on 07.11.2024.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9915 of 2025(3) dt.14-05-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The ligature mark was found around neck of the deceased which shows that she has committed suicide. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner informed about the occurrence to the father of the informant but he could not receive his telephone call then he sent a message to brother of the deceased through Watsapp.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. It appears from statement of the victim that Rs. 50,000/- as dowry, was given to the petitioner in his Bank account sent by brother of the deceased, Anand Raj whose statement has been recorded in Paragraph no. 10 of the case diary. Anand Raj has stated that despite he made payment of Rs. 50,000/-, the petitioner committed murder of his sister.

7. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail, accordingly, rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Neha/- U T