Indira Jha @ Indra Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77729 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2024 Thana- SAHPUR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Indira Jha @ Indra Devi Wife of Sadanand Jha R/O Post and P.S.- Jaynagar, Dist.- Madhubani, Bihar, At Present Indravati Apartment, Flat no. 406, Ashopur, P.S.- Shahpur, Dist.- Patna.

2.

Moni Kumari @ Priyanka Kumari D/O Sadanand Jha R/O Post and P.S.- Jaynagar, Dist.- Madhubani, Bihar, At Present Indravati Apartment, Flat no. 406, Ashopur, P.S.- Shahpur, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Saurav Karn, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sharma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 22-01-2025 Heard Mr. Saurav Karn, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sharma for the informant and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2.

The petitioners seeks bail in connection with a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 304B/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3.

As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioners is that they killed the sister of the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand for dowry.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have not committed any

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77729 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025 2/2 offence as alleged in the FIR. They have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. There is no specific overt act against the petitioners. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners and other co-accused persons. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent and has been rotting in judicial custody since 18.06.2024. 5.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for grant of bail on their behalf is hereby rejected. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

7.

However, petitioners are at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T