Jagdish Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33917 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-380 Year-2024 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

Jagdish Ray S/o Ramanand Ray R/o vill - Nauwa Chak, P.s.- Harlochanpur Sukki, Distt.- Vaishali 2.

Beepin Kumar S/o Jagdish Ray R/o vill - Nauwa Chak, P.s.- Harlochanpur Sukki, Distt.- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Akash Kumar Mishra For the State :

Mr. J.N.Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-11-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 80, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 registered in connection with Patepur P.S.Case No. 380 of 2024.

3. As per allegation, the father-in-law (petitioner no.1) and mother-in-law were instrumental in killing the deceased for nonfulfilment of demand of dowry.

4. It has been submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the father-in-law and the brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased respectively. They are separate from mess and stays of husband of the deceased. Whatever the allegation, that is general in nature. The onus lies upon husband of the deceased to explain the cause of death of the deceased.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33917 of 2025(5) dt.04-11-2025 2/2

5. From perusal of the FIR itself, it appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioner No. 1 of demand of dowry.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there is specific allegation of torturing the deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry against the petitioner no.1 Jagdish Ray, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

6. So far as petitioner no. 2 Beepin Kumar is concerned, there is no specific allegation against him, at all. Accordingly, let petitioner no.2 Beepin Kumar above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within four weeks from the date of communication of this 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Patepur P.S.Case No. 380 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) CrPC/482(2) of the BNSS.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T