Dipu Rai @ Dipu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28870 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-285 Year-2023 Thana- PUNAURA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Dipu Rai @ Dipu Yadav Son of Ram Prawesh Rai R/o Village- Ranjitpur (west Shankur Nagar) P.S-. Punaura, Dist.- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025 Heard Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Punaura P.S. Case No. 285 of 2023, FIR dated 23.12.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, the informant's daughter was married to the petitioner six months ago. After marriage, the accused persons subjected her to cruelty and ultimately killed her due to non-fulfillment of their demand for a motorcycle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent, he has been made accused merely on the ground that he is husband of the deceased. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28870 of 2025(3) dt.16-07-2025 2/2 allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R..

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, on the basis of the materials available on record and case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R., apart from that, the deceased has died within six months of the marriage. The allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is supported by the medical evidence (Postmortem Report).

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. supported by medical evidence, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Punaura P.S. Case No. 285 of 2023 pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Sitarmarhi.

7. Prayer is refused.

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