Rabindra Chaudhary @ Ravindra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77199 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2024 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== Rabindra Chaudhary @ Ravindra Kumar, Son of Late Vilash Choudhary, Resident of village - Manullahpatti Ward No.- 06, Police Station - Bhargama, District - Araria.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. S.K. Lal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pritesh Kumar Lal, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Sunil Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No.331 of 2024, dated. 02.11.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per allegation, the deceased, Ranjana Kumari, aged about 25 years was married to the Petitioner in the year 2023. However, on 01.11.2024 she has been subjected to dowry death.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77199 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026 2/2 case. He further submits that as a matter of fact, she has committed suicide by consuming poison and the Petitioner himself had informed the death of his wife/deceased to the Informant/father. He also submits that as per the postmortem report, the cause of death is not certain and viscera has been preserved and the result is still awaited.
5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.
6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.
8. Considering the fact that the daughter of the informant has died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage in the house of the Petitioner, who is husband of the deceased, I am not persuaded to enlarge the Petitioner on bail.
9. The present bail petition is rejected, accordingly. (Jitendra Kumar, J.) Chandan/- U T