Arvind Sharma @ Arvind Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82471 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2024 Thana- GAMAHARIYA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Arvind Sharma @ Arvind Kumar Son of Late Surdas Sharma R/o Village - Bhelwa, P.S. - Gamhariya, District - Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in connection with Gamhariya P.S. Case No. 202 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Karo Kumari (deceased) was married to this petitioner on 10.04.2023. It is further alleged that she was subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand. On 30.09.2024, the informant got information that his daughter has been killed by throttling. When the informant went to the matrimonial house of the deceased, he found that the in-laws were going to cremate the deceased. There were mark of violence on the neck of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82471 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026 2/3 deceased and after that, he informed the police.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during course of investigation, it has come that the informant and his family members were there in the cremation of the deceased and they also took the belongings of the deceased from her matrimonial house. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 02.04.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and has submitted that from perusal of the postmortem report, it is clear that the board of doctors who have conducted the autopsy of the deceased have found multiple bruise over interior and lateral part of the neck and cause of death is opined asphyxia due to throttling. It is a case of throttling. The deceased has died in the matrimonial house. It is the duty of the petitioner to disclose the circumstances under which, the deceased has died which is not being disclosed by the petitioner. He is the husband and the main thrust of allegation is also against him.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82471 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026 3/3 and considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. However, the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
8. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Shubham/- U T