Suraj Kewat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27052 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-306 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda ====================================================== Suraj Kewat S/o- Rajo Kewat R/o - Dharampur, P.S - Chandi, District - Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Sunil Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-07-2026 Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Prasad, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 15.06.2025 in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No. 306 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 14.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2) and 61 of the BNS, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, all the accused persons including this petitioner have killed the sister of the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27052 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026 2/2 any offence as alleged in the FIR and he has been made accused merely on the ground that he is husband of the deceased. In fact, informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence and merely on the basis of suspicion the petitioner has been made accused in the present case.

5. The learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of material available on record and the case diary have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the postmortem report of the deceased it appears that the cause of death is Asphyxia due to Smothering. Apart from the aforesaid, number of ante-mortem injuries were also found on the body of the deceased and this petitioner being the husband of the deceased has full responsibility to take care of his wife.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No. 306 of 2025 pending in the court of learned ACJM III, Nalanda at Hilsa.

7. Prayer is refused.

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