Anil Kumar Gond @ Anil Gond v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80061 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2024 Thana- CHAND District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Anil Kumar Gond @ Anil Gond son of Rajendra Prasad Gond Resident of village- Baheriyan P.S. -Chand, District- Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rajani Kant Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Petitioner along with other accused persons are said to have killed the daughter of the informant for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made an accused in this case on account of the fact that he is the husband of the deceased, however, he has never demanded the dowry nor subjected her to cruel treatment. Further, the postmortem report also does not indicate the cause of death and the Viscera report also does not indicate the presence of any metallic or volatile poison. The petitioner is in custody since 22.06.2024 with no criminal antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80061 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026 2/2
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for bail on the ground that certain antemortem injuries were found on the right eye brow and neck of the deceased and further, the trial is in progress.
6. A report with regard to the stage of trial also indicates that total of six witnesses have been examined including the five witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet and the trial court is likely to conclude the trial within a period of six months.
7. In view of the allegations and considering that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, who is primarily responsible for the welfare of his wife, coupled with the fact that the trial has reached its advanced stage and likely to be concluded within six months, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected in connection Chand P.S. Case No. 86 of 2024.
8. However, learned court below is directed to expedite the trial without giving unnecessary adjournments and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months. devendra/- (Soni Shrivastava, J) U T