Jai Prakash Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48950 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-568 Year-2024 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna ====================================================== Jai Prakash Sharma S/O Sanjay Sharma R/O Noorpur, Rikabganj, P.O.- Katra Bazar, Samiti, Simli Murarpur, P.S.- Maalsalami, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Bhardwaj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umanath Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 31-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Maalsalami P.S. Case No. 568 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 140(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act.

3. The informant, Preety Devi, who is the elder sister of the deceased, lodged an FIR stating therein that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2023. The customary presents were given at the time of marriage, but the accused persons were adamant in their demand for dowry of Rs. 6 lakhs in cash and a motorcycle. On 12.12.2024, her sister informed her that the accused persons were assaulting her and on the next day, they murdered her sister and made the dead body disappeared.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, never demanded

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48950 of 2025(3) dt.31-10-2025 2/2 dowry and has falsely been implicated. A male child was born out of the wedlock of the couple, which shows the cordial relations between the husband and wife. His further submission is that the other coaccused persons, who are relatives of the husband (petitioner) have been granted anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. The deceased died within a year of her marriage in her matrimonial house under suspicious circumstances. The elder sister of the deceased is the informant and one day prior to the occurrence, there was a telephonic conversation between the deceased and her elder sister, Preety Devi. The deceased apprised the informant that the accused persons, including her husband (the petitioner) were assaulting her with belts, fists, and slaps. The next morning, they murdered the deceased.

7. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased, he is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T