Bablu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83280 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2024 Thana- FESHAR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Bablu Yadav S/O Dinesh Yadav R/O Village-Theghawa, P.S-Feshar, DistrictAurangabad (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Feshar P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/ 4 of the D.P. Act and later on Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was added.

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 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83280 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026 2/2 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 27.01.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has 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.

8. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

9. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer for grant of bail before the Trial Court if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from today. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T