Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19335/2025dismissed

Ankush Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

2025-05-13Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19335 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-691 Year-2024 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== ANKUSH THAKUR S/O LATE BINDESHWARI THAKUR R/O Vill.- Samaul, Ward no. 10, P.S.- Forbesganj, Dist.- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13-05-2025 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 Forbesganj P.S. Case No. 691 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act.

3. As per allegation, the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner three years ago. After marriage, the accused persons, including the petitioner, started torturing her for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. On 18.11.2024, the informant received information that the accused persons had killed his daughter due to the non-fulfillment of demand of motorcycle.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19335 of 2025(3) dt.13-05-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner neither the inquest report nor the postmortem report support the prosecution case. Further submission is that the petitioner is the only earning member of the family. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.11.2024 having no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a husband and he has full responsibility to take care of his wife.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant him privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected.

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