← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./13134/2025rejected

Rajendra Baitha v. The State Of Bihar

2025-05-15Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13134 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2024 Thana- BELSAND District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Rajendra Baitha Son of Ram Briksh Baitha Resident of Village - Sukhi, P.S. - Belsand, District - Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13313 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2024 Thana- BELSAND District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.

Rajkumar Baitha Son of Ram Briksh Baitha Resident of village- Sukhi PSBelsand District -Sitamarhi 2.

Nageena Devi Wife of Rajkumar Baitha Resident of village- Sukhi PSBelsand District -Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13134 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Nand Kumar, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13313 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2025 In Cr.Misc No.13134 of 2025 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nand Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Belsand P.S. Case No. 70 of 2024, F.I.R. dated

2/4 20.06.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that the petitioner along with other accused persons murdered his daughter due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and tired to burn the dead body to abolish the evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that petitioner is not the family member of the deceased and he is co-villager and there is no specific allegation against him.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of materials available on record and case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it has come during investigation that petitioner along with other accused persons tried to dispose the dead body of the deceased.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the

3/4 petitioner in connection with Belsand P.S. Case No. 70 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Sitamarhi.

7. Prayer is refused.

In Cr.Misc No.13313 of 2025 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner are apprehending their arrest in connection with Belsand P.S. Case No. 70 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 20.06.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that the petitioner along with other accused persons murdered his daughter due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and tired to burn the dead body to abolish the evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis that petitioner no.1 is father-in-law and petitioner no.2 is mother-in-law of the deceased. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not

4/4 committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of materials available on record and case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that it has come during investigation that petitioners along with other accused persons tried to dispose the dead body of the deceased.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with with Belsand P.S. Case No. 70 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Sitamarhi.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T