Nitish Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31318 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2024 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna ====================================================== Nitish Ray S/o Yogi Ray R/o Village - Burhra, P.S. - Athmalgola, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP For the informant :
Mr. Murlidhar Mishra, Advocate Mr.Shubhash Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this bail application for the grant of regular bail in connection with Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 237 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable u/s 80(2), 238 and 3(5) of B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused person had killed the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and also disappeared her body. The informant alleges that her daughter's body was cremated in order to conceal the evidence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is Dewar of the deceased and has falsely been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31318 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026 2/3 implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that there is no prima facie evidence which would connect him with the present case. It has next been submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons namely, Bhusan Ray has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.No. 87638 of 2024. It has lastly been submitted that he was not involved in killing of the daughter of the informant. The petitioner carries clean antecedent and is in custody since 11.11.2025.
5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and has submitted that petitioner being the immediate family member of the husband of the deceased should not be released on bail as there is an allegation that the entire family members of the husband of the deceased had participated in killing Sonam Kumari.
6. Having gone through the facts of the case and taking into account the materials available on record as well as the submissions of the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner is the Dewar of the deceased and the evidence collected during the course of investigation clearly establishes the involvement at least in the disposal of the dead body of the deceased without
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31318 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026 3/3 giving knowledge to the parents of the deceased. The stage of the trial was called for from the learned trial court and it has been reported that the case is presently fixed for evidence and summons have been issued against the private witnesses.
7. Looking at such circumstances, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and the prayer for bail is thus rejected in connection with Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 237 of 2024.
8. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2025, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from today. (Kumar Manish, J) sanjeev/- U