Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43682 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-797 Year-2023 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna ====================================================== Chandan Kumar S/o Bihari Yadav R/o Village- Chandchak, Karai, P.O. - Lahsuna, P.S. - Masaurhi (Lahsuna), District -Patna, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Minakshi Kumari, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP For the informant :

Ram Naresh Ray, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 14-11-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 797 of 2023 for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 498(A), 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act lodged on 12.11.2023 by the informant, Kamindra Prasad.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that this petitioner who is the husband, got married to the victim lady on 05.03.2023 and within eight months, on 10.11.2023, an unknown number gave information that she is dead. Accordingly, the FIR against the accused.

4. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43682 of 2025(4) dt.14-11-2025 2/2 rejected on 20.09.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 62259 of 2024 and this is the second petition.

5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court about his being in custody for long, learned counsel representing the informant submit that the perusal of the post-mortem would show that death took place due to strangulation.

6. The petitioner is the husband, cause of death is strangulation, it would be appropriate that he co-operates in the trial. The Trial Court is also directed to see to it that the petitioner being in custody, the same is expedited.

7. So far as the prayer part is concerned, the same is rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U T