Patna High CourtCR. MISC./65942/2024bail rejected

Dharmnath Kumar @ Lalu v. The State Of Bihar

2024-12-16Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65942 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2024 Thana- PIYAR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Dharmnath Kumar @ Lalu S/o- Late Vikhari Ray @ Bhikhari Ray VillageBishunpur Mehsi, P.S-Piyar, Dist.-Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeet Kumar Singh For the Informant :

Mr. Suneil Kumar Thakur For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umanath Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Piyar P.S. Case No. 70 of 2024 dated 29.03.2024 registered for the offence/s punishable u/ss 304B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

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 Rs. one lakh as dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65942 of 2024(3) dt.16-12-2024 2/2 petitioner. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the deceased. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 15.04.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased who killed her due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry within seven years of her marriage.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the specific and heinous nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail petition of the petitioner stands rejected.

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