Kinnu Bin @ Kinnu Choudhary @ Kinnu Bind v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74445 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-389 Year-2024 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar ====================================================== Kinnu Bin @ Kinnu Choudhary @ Kinnu Bind S/o Bandlal Choudhary @ Bandelal Bind R/o Village- Milikiya, P.S.- Buxar (Mufassil), District- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, APP For the Informant : Mr. Rang Nath Choubey, Advocate ====================================================== 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 Buxar (Mufassil) P.S. Case no.389 of 2024 registered under section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons including the petitioner herein who happens to be the husband of the deceased, for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, killed the daughter of the informant leading to the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only on account of his being the husband of the deceased. The death was as a result of accident of electrocution which took place while

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74445 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026 2/2 putting a plug in the electric socket. It is further submitted that it has transpired in course of investigation that the petitioner took his wife to the hospital, however, unfortunately she died. Even in the post-mortem report, the cause of death is said to have been caused by electric current. The petitioner is in custody since 13.8.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in the FIR, the material that has transpired in course of investigation, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T