Dhiraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21921 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2022 Thana- AIRPORT District- Patna ====================================================== Dhiraj Kumar Son of Late Rajdeo Singh Resident of Village - Murlichak Jagdeo Path, P.S. - Hawai Adda, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Hawai Adda P.S Case No. 38/2022 dated 06.02.2022 registered for the offences punishable u/s 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently added Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 03.02.2022 in the morning the informant's wife went away without giving information and she has not come back to home till 06.02.2022. The informant searched for her but she could not be traced.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21921 of 2025(2) dt.24-06-2025 2/3 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R, the name of the petitioner has surfaced in this case from the statement of the witnesses Sangita Singh, Purushottam Singh, Poonam Devi, Mithlesh Singh and Rishu Kumar ( in para 72, 73, 84, 96, 196 and 197 of the case diary). The petitioner has one antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 19.12.2023.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner. The regular bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26150 of 2024. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The petitioner was the informant in this case who became accused during investigation. It is further submitted that some bloodstains were recovered from the bed kept in the room belonging to Khushi Kumari and the same was sent for DNA analysis and it was found that blood actually belongs to Khushi Kumari. As per the FSL report, the Human DNA have been recovered from the source of exhibits marked - A, B, C and D respectively and on the basis of observation, it is sufficient to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21921 of 2025(2) dt.24-06-2025 3/3 conclude that the source of exhibit marked - C (source-blood sample of Mithlesh Singh) and source of exhibit marked - D (source- blood sample of Poonam Devi) are found to be Biological parents of the biological stains found on source of exhibit marked-B (source-blood stained bed mattress cuttings). In the Narco Test, one Sanjeet Kumar has stated that Dhiraj has killed her (Khushi). It is further submitted that page no. 6 of the Narco Test is missing.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of offence against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is rejected in connection with Hawai Adda P.S Case No. 38/2022, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna.
7. This application stands rejected.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Raj Ranjan/- U T