Patna High CourtCR. MISC./75169/2025bail rejected

Vivek Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-09Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75169 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1018 Year-2022 Thana- KANKARBAG District- Patna ====================================================== Vivek Kumar Sinha S/O Late Vinod Kumar Sinha R/O Vinod Bhawan, Main Road Knakarbagh, In front of Sagar Restaurant, P.S- Kankarbagh, Town and Distt.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nagadeo Choubey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, A.P.P.

For the Informant :

Mr. Amrendra Kumar Sinha, No. 1, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Kankarbagh P. S. Case No. 1018 of 2022 in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is a case of dowry death. As per F.I.R., it is alleged that all the named accused persons, including this petitioner, killed the daughter of informant due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case merely because he is husband of the deceased. Petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75169 of 2025(4) dt.09-01-2026 2/2 in custody since 19.04.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that during investigation, son and daughter of the deceased have stated that this petitioner was alone with the deceased at the time of death, watching television.

6. Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

7. However, since petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2025, Trial Court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T