Dhananjay Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12843 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-922 Year-2024 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== Dhananjay Das S/O Durga Das R/O Village- Gajanpur, P.S- Paraiya, Distt.- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Aryan Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Gaya Muffasil P.S. Case No. 922 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 108 of BNS, 2023.

3. The informant, Rajendra Ravidas, lodged an FIR stating therein that the petitioner had illicit relations with his 24year-old daughter (the deceased) on the pretext of marriage. On 19.10.2024, at 9:00 AM, the petitioner called her on mobile number 7004541491. Soon thereafter, the petitioner informed the informant that his daughter had committed suicide by jumping into the river. The dead body was recovered from the river with the assistance of the SDRF team.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12843 of 2025(3) dt.16-05-2025 2/2 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Had the petitioner intended to abet her suicide, he would not have informed her father after the occurrence. Soon after the incident, the petitioner informed her father, which shows his innocence. The petitioner is under custody since 21.10.2024.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State, Mr. J. N. Thakur, has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner, according to the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses in paragraph numbers 6, 7, and 8 of the case diary, had illicit relations with the deceased. He called her on her mobile, and she went to the house of the petitioner after receiving the call. Thereafter, her dead body was recovered from the river. The CDR of the mobile set of the deceased was detected during the course of investigation, and it was revealed that at the relevant time, she had a conversation with the petitioner.

6. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

7. The learned trial court shall take every endeavor to expedite the trial.

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