Satendra Prajapati v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73360 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2025 Thana- TANDWA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Satendra Prajapati Son of Late Mithilesh Prajapati, Resident of VillageRamnagar Suryapura PS- Tandwa, District -Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 21-01-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case no.56 of 2025 registered under sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner who happens to be the husband of the deceased along with other accused persons are said to have killed the sister of the informant for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry by way of Rs.5 lacs in cash and a four-wheeler vehicle.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned Senior counsel has taken the Court through the material that has transpired in course of investigation including the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73360 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026 2/2 information given to the police and the contents of the inquest report to submit that they do no support the prosecution case. No case under section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out and the postmortem report also does not support the allegations levelled by the informant. The petitioner is in custody since 5.7.2025, charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and he has no criminal antecedent.

5. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State who submits that the viscera report has been received wherein the cause of death is opined to be suspected homicidal hanging.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R. against the petitioner who happens to be the husband of the deceased of having made a demand of Rs.5 lacs in cash and a four-wheeler vehicle by way of dowry and of having killed her together with the contents of the viscera report, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T