Jitendra Dubey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10804 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2023 Thana- SIKRAUL District- Buxar ====================================================== Jitendra Dubey Son of Late Ramgopal Dubey Resident of villageKulmanpur, P.s.- Navanagar, Distt.- Buxar, Presently resides at R/O- VillagePandeypur, P.S.- Sikrol, Distt.- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Informant :

Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sikrol P.S Case No. 35 of 2023 from the Court of learned Additional Distrct and Sessions Jduge- IIIrd, Buxar registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 120(B) of the I.P.C.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, accused person killed the husband of the informant in the backdrop of some dispute.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10804 of 2025(4) dt.13-05-2025 2/3 further submits that name of the petitioner came only from the confessional statement of the co-accused and the Hon'ble Court has granted bail to her in this case. He further submits that allegation against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 05.05.2023 and petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition.

5. However, learned counsel for the informant and APP for the State oppose the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

6. From perusal of the F.I.R., impugned order and case diary, it appears that there was love affair between the wife of the deceased and the petitioner, Hence both planed to eliminate the deceased (husband of the Mamta Devi) from their way. In paragraph 51 of the case diary, Mamta Devi Confessed that she along with the petitioner have killed the deceased.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of this case and submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10804 of 2025(4) dt.13-05-2025 3/3 regular bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T