Patna High CourtCR. MISC./81122/2025dismissed

Upendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-21Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81122 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2024 Thana- TANKUPPA District- Gaya ====================================================== Upendra Kumar S/o Ramchandra Yadav R/o Village- Gewal Bigha, P.S.- Tankuppa, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammed Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 182/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 3(5) of B.N.S.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner is the husband of the deceased and he is alleged to have killed the deceased for demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case as the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison (celphos). Learned counsel further submits that he has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 12.06.2025. The petitioner undertakes to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81122 of 2025(6) dt.21-04-2026 2/2 co-operate in the case/ trial.

5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP for the State have jointly opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant has taken this Court to para '41' of the case diary which contains the statement of a child witness aged about three years who is the son of the petitioner and the deceased who has said that the petitioner and his brother's wife had killed the deceased. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that the trial has started and prosecution will examine all the witnesses.

6. Considering the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed and if the trial is still delayed by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T