Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59435 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-451 Year-2024 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Mahto Son of Budhan Mahto RO Village -Rajvada PS -Ghorasahan District -East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar bihar 2.

Jay Narayan Mahto son of Late Nirshu Mahto Resident of VillageKarsahiya, Ps- Dhaka, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with S. Tr. No. 374 of 2025 arising out of Ghorasashan P.S. Case No. 451 of 2024 dated 29.11.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 80 read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have killed the informant's daughter due to non-fulfillment of demand of golden chain as dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased and he has no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59435 of 2025(2) dt.02-09-2025 2/2 concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the informant's daughter. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 05.12.2024.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the bail petition of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased who killed his wife due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. From perusal of the impugned order, as per the post-mortem report of the deceased mentioned in para 64 of the case diary, the cause of death is stated to be suffocation due to hanging.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail.

7. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

8. The application stands rejected.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Gautam/- U T