Bimlesh Kumar @ Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18710 of 2025 Arising out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2023 Thana- KARPI District- Arwal ====================================================== Bimlesh Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Son of Nunu Yadav Resident of VillageParyag Bigha, P.S.- Karapi (Shahar Telpa O.P.), District- Arwal. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Karpi (Shahar Telpa) P.S. Case No. 289 of 2023 (S.Tr. No. 59 of 2024) instituted for the offences under Sections 302/304(B)/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of ADJ-I, Arwal. He has one criminal antecedent.

3. As per the prosecution case, the sister of the informant was married to the petitioner in the year 2017 and he used to torture his wife for dowry. It is further alleged that the petitioner has love affair with another girl and was adamant to perform marriage with her. On account of such love affair with the said lady the petitioner had killed the sister of the informant and the dead body was found near a canal.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18710 of 2025(3) dt.18-06-2025 2/2

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and their marriage was solemnized seven years ago. It is further submitted that from the post-mortem report it is clear that the cause of death is due to drowning with sign of violence. It is next submitted that the charges have already been framed in this case as such there is no chance of tampering with evidence. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 11.08.2023.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has submitted that there is allegation upon the petitioner to kill his wife and from the post-mortem report sign of violence was also found as such the petitioner does not deserve liberty of bail.

6. Taking into account the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.

7. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Sourendra Pandey, J) Vikash/- U T