Ankit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11057 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2024 Thana- KUDRA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Ankit kumar S/o Amit Singh R/o vill - Sakari, P.S.- Kudra, Distt.- Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-04-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of regular bail, arises out of Kudra Police Station Case No. 203 of 2024, dated 19.06.2024, disclosing offences under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Informant Report, is that on 18.06.2024, at about 07 PM in the evening, the petitioner, along with other co-accused persons, killed the daughter of the informant by pressing her neck due to nonfulfillment of the demand of one Apache motorcycle as dowry.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. Though the petitioner is named in the FIR but there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, rather, the allegation is general and omnibus in nature. One of the co-accused namely Nanhak Singh has been granted regular

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11057 of 2025(3) dt.11-04-2025 2/2 bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 72925 of 2024. Petitioner is husband of the deceased. The postmortem report suggest the death due to hanging.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials on record including the impugned order.

6. Within one year of the marriage, the informant's daughter died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home for dowry. The petitioner is husband of the deceased. The nature of death is not important whether it is natural, suicidal or accidental but the fact of the matter is that deceased died an unnatural death within one year of her marriage. There is a presumption against the accused under Section 113A, 113B of the Evidence Act, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant privilege of regular bail to the petitioner.

7. This application is, accordingly, rejected.

8. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after a period of nine months if the trial does not show much progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) HarshPandey/- U T