Patna High CourtCR. MISC./44418/2025bail rejected

Monu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-23Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44418 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRA District- Patna ====================================================== Monu Kumar Son of Sri Bharat Chaudhary Resident of village- Sorampur, Sheikhpura, P.O.- Sorampur, P.S.- Pipra, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 326, 341, 504, 506, 498A, 304B/34 of the IPC.

3. Informant's daughter was married with the petitioner on 3.1.2022. Later on, petitioner and his family members started subjecting her to cruelty and harassment for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry of Rs.5 lacs. It is further alleged that on 2.1.2024 informant received information that her daughter was killed by the petitioner and his family members.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the marriage between petitioner and deceased was a love marriage and in such marriage allegation of demand of dowry appears to be false and concocted. Daughter of informant died due to ailment and information regarding death had been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44418 of 2025(3) dt.23-09-2025 2/2 given to the informant. Thereafter, parents of deceased had also come and participated in the cremation. F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay of about one year without any explanation which renders the entire prosecution case doubtful. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is direct and specific allegation that he and his family members killed the deceased for non-fulfilment of dowry demand.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is husband of the deceased, who died in unnatural condition within seven years of marriage in her in-laws house, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T