Sumod Rai @ Suman Rai @ Suman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78860 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-405 Year-2024 Thana- BIDUPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Sumod Rai @ Suman Rai @ Suman Kumar Son of Kameshwar Rai Resident of Village- Gopalpur, P.S.-Bidupur, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Hemant Ray, Advocate Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 06-02-2026 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Hemant Ray, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Choubey Jawahar, learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case No. 405 of 2024, S.Tr. No. 500 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 80/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner alongwith the family members tortured and killed the deceased for the non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78860 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. No specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 05.02.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner since the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, the onus lies upon him in this case of dowry death and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also the petitioner being the husband of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T