Patna High CourtCR. MISC./85824/2024dismissed

Jitendra Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2025-03-05Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85824 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2024 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran ====================================================== Jitendra Chaudhary Son of Gajendra Chaudhary Village- Badhanihar, P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gauri Shankar Thakur, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 360 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable u/s 304B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. All the F.I.R. named accused persons including this petitioner, on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, in furtherance of the common intention are said to have committed murder of the daughter of the informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. Petitioner is husband of the deceased and he has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85824 of 2024(3) dt.05-03-2025 2/2 the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. The real fact is that the deceased was seriously ill and she was admitted to hospital at Gorakhpur, but during course of her treatment, she died. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he has been languishing in custody since 08.08.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completion of deposition of the informant.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T