Priyaranjan Kumar Thakur @ Priya Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88635 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2024 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Priyaranjan Kumar Thakur @ Priya Ranjan Kumar S/o- Late Navalkishor Thakur Resident of Village - Siuri Aima, Ps- Saraiya Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 11.07.2025 and the informant alleges that his daughter was married to the petitioner, after marriage, the accused persons started demanding Rs.2,00,000/- by way of additional dowry, further the petitioner was demanding Rs.2,00,000/- for running the school and used to torture the victim on account of nonfulfillment of the demand, next alleges that his daughter disclosed that petitioner was having extra an marital affair with
2/4 Kajal Kumari and wanted to marry her. It is next alleged that on 29.01.2024 the informant received an information that his daughter has been killed and her dead body is lying in the house, accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence with the police and saw the house locked, thereafter, they entered the house and saw the dead body of his daughter lying on a bed with mark of scratch on her neck and blood was oozing from her mouth, thereafter, the dead body was sent for post mortem and after post mortem, the dead body was handed over to the informant on 30.10.2024 and the same was cremated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being husband has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations, as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is next submitted that the marriage was six years old and in these six years, no case ever came to be instituted either by the deceased or the informant alleging demand of dowry and torture on account of non-fulfillment of the demand. It is next submitted that the deceased committed suicide. It is further submitted that Gulabiya Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased, had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing
3/4 Criminal Miscellaneous No.51838 of 2024 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 23.09.2024.
5. The learned APP opposes the bail application and submits that case of petitioner is not at parity with the case of Gulabiya Devi. It is also submitted that the death took place within seven years of marriage, as such, presumption of law is also against the accused. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations, as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant alleges that he along with the police force reached the place of occurrence and found the door locked and no one was present in the house, as such, the door was broken and the dead body was seen lying on a bed with mark of injuries. It is also submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he was having an extra marital relation with a woman with whom he intended to marry.
The learned APP fairly submits that no doubt informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence nor any case came to be instituted in six years of marriage but then what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that the deceased died but then whether she was killed or committed suicide are an aspect of trial.
4/4 then it was petitioner who made conditions conducive for the victim to take the extreme steps of ending her life.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Saraiya P.S. Case No.62 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, West, Muzaffarpur.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sanjay/- U T