Dipesh Kumar @ Dipesh Kumar Sharma @ Dinesh Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57519 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-456 Year-2025 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Dipesh Kumar @ Dipesh Kumar Sharma @ Dinesh Sharma S/o Vinod Sharma R/o Village- Sherpur Chhatarwara, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali. Permanent Address- R/o Village- Rajapur, P.S.- Sakara, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nagendra Prasad, A.P.P.

For the Informant :

Mr. Sachin Kumar, Ms. Anjana, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mahua P. S. Case No. 456 of 2025 in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. As per prosecution case, daughter of informant was married to co-accused Kundan Kumar two years ago and after the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons for dowry and ultimately, on 09.04.2025, the informant received an information that his daughter has been killed by all the accused persons for dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57519 of 2025(4) dt.27-11-2025 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case merely because he is brother-in-law of the deceased. He is simply a victim of over implication. Petitioner is separate in mess and property. Moreover, thrust of accusation is against husband of the deceased. Petitioner claims clean antecedent and he is in custody since 07.07.2025.

5. However, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and period of custody, this bail application is allowed. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Mahua P. S. Case No. 456 of 2025. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T