Nitish Kumar Paswan @ Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55534 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-537 Year-2024 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Nitish Kumar Paswan @ Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Paswan S/o Ram Pravesh Paswan Resident of village- Bhagwanpur, ward no 02, P.S.- Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rashmi Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 17-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 80(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner in association of other co-accused is said to have killed the daughter of the informant by strangulating her on nonfulfillment of demand of dowry.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been made accused only on account of the fact that he is the husband of the deceased and no specific allegations have been levelled against him. Further, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55534 of 2025(7) dt.17-02-2026 2/2 deceased has herself committed suicide and the F.I.R. was lodged after delay of 16 hours with due thought and deliberation. It is further submitted that no substantial progress has been made in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 10.11.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the main accused of the case.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that petitioner is the husband of the deceased, who is primarily responsible for welfare of the deceased and the postmortem report indicates unnatural death due to strangulation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Soni Shrivastava, J) Trivedi/- U T