Chandrasekhar Prasad Verma @ Chandrasekhar Kumar Verma @ Chandrasekhar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30870 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2024 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Chandrasekhar Prasad verma @ Chandrasekhar Kumar Verma @ Chandrasekhar Kumar S/o- Janeshwar Prasad Verma @ Janeshwar Prasad Village- SAidpur Po Ps- Tehta Dist- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-08-2025 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 264 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 02.06.2024 for the offences punishable under Section 304(B) read with section 120(B) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per the First Information Report, the informant alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons have killed her daughter, namely, Nidhi Kumari (now, deceased) due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR itself that date of occurrence is 30.05.2024 but the FIR instituted on 02.06.2024 i.e. after delay of two days without giving any explanation of delay. The petitioner has been made accused merely on the basis that he is the husband of the deceased and infact the petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence and he was at Jaipur and it has come during investigation that the victim has committed suicide herself and dead body of the deceased was found hanging in the room which was locked from inside and after breaking the door, the police took the dead body for postmortem and the present FIR has been instituted after the postmortem.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and he is responsible for the present occurrence but fairly submits on the basis of case diary that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and he was at Jaipur.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
3/4 let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M-I, Jehanabad in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 264 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
4/4 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T