Manoj Patel @ Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50407 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-847 Year-2018 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== Manoj Patel @ Manoj Kumar S/o Lalbabu Patel @ Babulal Raut R/o villChota Bariyarpur, P.S.- Chatauni, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Lalan Raut S/o Late Mahendra Raut R/o Moll Agarwa, P.S .- Motihar Town, Distt.- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhannjay Kumar Ii, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Complain Case No. 847 of 2018 in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the daughter of the complainant was married to Manoj Patel in the year 2010. After marriage, all the accused persons started committing torture and harassment for dowry and thereafter killed the daughter of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. He denied the allegation and stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case only because he happens to be the husband of the deceased. The informant is not an eye-witness. As a matter of fact, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50407 of 2025(2) dt.12-09-2025 2/2 deceased got burn injuries while cooking and during the course of treatment she died. Thereafter, local police was informed and U.D. Case No. 16 of 2013 was lodged. The informant and his wife also stated before the local police that the deceased got burnt during cooking and died in the course of treatment. They also participated in the cremation and after a long delay, the present compliant case has been lodged. The petitioner is in custody since 19.02.2025. Charge-sheet has already been submitted.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in lodging the complaint case and the period of custody, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is allowed. Let the petitioner, mentioned above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Complain Case No. 847 of 2018. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Neha/- U T