Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35808/2025bail rejected

Mohit Thakur @ Mohit Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

2025-06-18Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35808 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2024 Thana- RAMGARHWA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Mohit Thakur @ Mohit Sharma Son of Shivpujan Thakur Resident of Village - Uchidih, P.S.- Palanawa, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Shankar Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 221 of 2025 arising out of Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 117 of 2024 dated 18.05.2024 registered for the offence/s punishable u/s 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have killed the informant's daughter by giving electric shock.

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. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35808 of 2025(2) dt.18-06-2025 2/2 petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the deceased. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2024.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner by submitting that as per the postmortem report, mentioned in the impugned order, the cause of death is due to cardiac arrest likely due to cardiac arrhythmia due to electric injuries.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

7. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

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