Patna High CourtCR. MISC./64906/2024dismissed

Kamlesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-01-17Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64906 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2024 Thana- CHACKMEHSI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Kamlesh Kumar Son of Late Raj Kumar Paiti Resident of Village- Saidpur, P.S.- Chakmehsi, Distt.- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that two years ago daughter of the informant was married to the petitioner. On 12.04.2024 at about 10:20 P.M. brother of the victim has received a call that his sister has burnt and she has been brought to J.K. Memorial Hospital. On this information, the informant along with his family members went there, then the petitioner demanded some cash. After that the treatment was started and for better treatment, the victim was referred to S. K.M.C.H.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64906 of 2024(4) dt.17-01-2025 2/2 where she was declared dead.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in connection with the present case. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 28.06.2024 having no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail stating that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that in-laws humiliated the deceased as she was having no issue. It is also mentioned in the FIR that there is no description of any dowry demand by the petitioner.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner is the husband as also death of the deceased caused in matrimonial home, I am not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail which is accordingly, rejected. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Jagdish/- U T