Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35963/2025bail rejected

Srikant Rajwanshi v. The State Of Bihar

2025-06-23Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35963 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2025 Thana- NASRIGANJ District- Rohtas ====================================================== Srikant Rajwanshi S/O Sujit Rajwar @ Suchit Ram @ Suchit Rajwar Resident of village- Sohagi, Sirisiya, P.S.- Nasriganj, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashutosh Tripathy, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 74 of 2025 dated 01.03.2025 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 103(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have strangulated the informant's daughter to death due to non-fulfillment of demand of motorcycle as dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased and he

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35963 of 2025(2) dt.23-06-2025 2/2 has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the informant's daughter. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 09.03.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the bail petition of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased who strangulated his wife to death due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. As per the impugned order, in para nos, 11 and 12 of the case diary, the witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of offence is against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail.

7. The application stands rejected.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) sudhanshu/- U T