Muskan Alam @ Muskan Mudsbin @ Muskan Mudasir v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35193 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-260 Year-2024 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Muskan Alam @ Muskan Mudsbin @ Muskan Mudasir S/o Late Marhuni Jillani Resident of Village- Khairava, Police Station- Madhuban, DistrictEast Champaran at Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar Gupta, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. Perused the case diary.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 260 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 304(B) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'the IPC').

3.

Prosecution case in short is that daughter of the informant has been done to death at her matrimonial house by her in-laws due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. 4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 24-03-2025. Petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35193 of 2025(3) dt.14-07-2025 2/3 bears no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

5.

It has been further submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. There is no specific allegation attributed to the petitioner, rather allegation is general and omnibus in nature. It is submitted that petitioner never made any demand of dowry from the deceased or her family members and in this regard, no complain has ever been lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deceased has committed suicide. Postmortem report suggests the cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation. 6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that witness, namely, Sakib, in this case has clearly stated that on 25-06-2024, fight took place between the petitioner and the deceased and he was told that petitioner has committed murder of her wife by strangulation her neck, which fact finds mention at paragraph No. 43 of the case diary.

7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case taking into account the fact that postmortem report

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35193 of 2025(3) dt.14-07-2025 3/3 corroborates the allegation levelled in the FIR, moreover, witness has also supported the prosecution case, hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Prayer for grant of bail is accordingly rejected. 8.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments 9.

However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer of bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from today.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T