Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39775/2025bail rejected

Abhimanyu Kumar @ Banti v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-14Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39775 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2023 Thana- KISHANPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Abhimanyu Kumar @ Banti S/o Amrendra Yadav Village- Barhatha, Ward No. 17, PS- Kishanpur, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Amitesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 14-08-2025 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 Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 269 of 2023 dated 17.12.2023 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 304B, 201 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 administering poison to her due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- 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 has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner neither demanded

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39775 of 2025(2) dt.14-08-2025 2/2 any dowry nor tortured the informant's daughter. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged offence. The co-accused person namely, Amrendra Yadav has already been granted regular bail by this court vide order dated 27.08.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 57933/2024. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2025.

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 killed his wife due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

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 above-named on bail.

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

8. The application stands rejected.

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