Patna High CourtCR. MISC./78336/2025bail rejected

Bijendra Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-11Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78336 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-662 Year-2024 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran ====================================================== Bijendra Sharma, S/o Umesh Sharma, Resident of Village- Garkha, PSGarkha, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Advocate Ms. Kritika Kumari, Advocate Mr. Himanshu Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Garkha P.S. Case no.662 of 2024 registered under section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the informant was done to death by the accused persons including the petitioner herein who happens to be the husband of the deceased due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry by way of a motorcycle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations of the demand of dowry etc. are all false and concocted. The petitioner is in custody since 18.10.2024 and has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78336 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026 2/2 no criminal antecedent. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State who submits that besides the petitioner being the husband of the deceased, there is direct allegation against him in the F.I.R. Further the prosecution case is supported by witnesses whose statement have been recorded in course of investigation in paragraph nos.10, 21 and 22 of the case diary. Further, the S.D.P.O. has also found the case to be true.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner who happens to be the husband of the deceased together with 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.

(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T