Dhirendra Mandal @ Dhirendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50014 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2024 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Dhirendra Mandal @ Dhirendra Kumar S/o Sri Shyam Mandal R/o VillTirasi, Ward No. 15, P.S.- Chausa, Distt- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs. Sucheta Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 22-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chausa P.S. Case No. 186 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 304B, 34 of the IPC.
3. As per the allegation, the informant's daughter was married to the petitioner in the year 2018. After marriage, petitioner along with other co-accused persons started torturing her for demand of dowry and due to non-fulfillment of their demand, the deceased died due to poisonous substance either given by the accused persons or she consumed it herself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50014 of 2025(2) dt.22-08-2025 2/2 deceased herself has consumed the poisonous substance and has committed suicide. The petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that before the death of the deceased they tortured the deceased due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. In this regard, matter was reported in the Gram Kachahri. The deceased died in her matrimonial house due to poisonous substance in circumstances which cannot be said to be normal.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances and also the fact that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) priyanka/- U T