Luvkush Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64649 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2025 Thana- GOH District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Luvkush Kumar S/o- Shrawan Kumar Village- Lohri Post-Devhara PS- Goh Distt-Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shashank Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pushpa Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Goh P.S. Case No. 127 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2)/3(5) of the BNS.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of the complainant's daughter was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2020. It is alleged that after some time, the petitioner and his family members started demanding a motorcycle and money as dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of the said demand, they hanged the complainant's daughter to death.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The death occurred after five years of the marriage. There is no reason for demand of dowry after five years of the marriage. Nandini

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64649 of 2025(5) dt.02-02-2026 2/2 Kumari, gotni of the deceased, did not support the allegation. He has submitted further that the deceased herself committed suicide and implicated the petitioner along with his entire family members. He has also submitted that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was not present there rather he was on his work place.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that the allegation of demand of motorcycle and money is only against the petitioner. The witnesses in case diary including the younger sister of the deceased have supported the occurrence. The petitioner is husband of the deceased.

7.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner doesn't deserve the privileges for bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T