Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18005 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-517 Year-2024 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Manjhi S/O Sahendra Manjhi @ Sahindra Manjhi Village- Dhanay, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 19-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 80 (2) and 3 (5) of the BNS.
3. The petitioner in association of other co-accused is said to have killed the daughter of the informant on nonfulfillment of demand of dowry.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the informant has never lodged any complaint or FIR against the in-laws family members for demand of dowry or tortured on any earlier occasion while the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18005 of 2025(2) dt.19-03-2025 2/2 marriage was solemnized two years ago. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The charge has not been framed against the petitioner as yet. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 01.10.2024.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and considering the seriousness of the allegation, he does not deserve bail.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T