Ranjan Thakur @ Ranjan Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53507 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2024 Thana- MADHEPUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Ranjan Thakur @ Ranjan Kumar Thakur Son of Ghuran Thakur villageChunni P.S- Madhepur District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Madhumita Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Madhepur P.S. Case No.57 of 2024 dated 12.05.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.
4. The prosecution case is that the informant, Shubhkala Devi has stated that she married her daughter with Ranjan Kumar Thakur (Petitioner) on 11.05.2023 with Hindu custom. After marriage the accused including the petitioner demanded dowry from her daughter. It is further alleged that on 03.05.2024 she received a call that her daughter health is very bad. When she reached her daughter's Sasural then she learnt
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53507 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 2/2 that Ghuran Thakur, Indu Devi, Arti Kumari, Ranjan Kumar Thakur (Petitioner) and Vishnu Thakur had murdered her by giving poison.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State strongly opposes the prayer for grant of bail of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased who is alleged to have murdered because the victim could not provide dowry. The petitioner is named in the FIR and from the impugned order, it is reveal that the witnesses have supported the story of demand of dowry in the case diary. The postmortem report in paragraph no.19 also shows the antemortem injury.
7. Considering these aspects of the matter, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence the bail application is rejected.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J) Prakash Narayan U T