Milan Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84359 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-536 Year-2024 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Milan Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh Son of Panchnand Singh @ Panch Lal Singh Resident of Village - Sadhopur, Post Office - Bosi, P.S. - Rangra, Dist. - Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 536 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 304(B), 120(B) & 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, daughter of the informant has been done to death by her in-laws due to nonfulfillment of the demand of dowry.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 05-06-2024. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application. It has been further submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84359 of 2025(2) dt.12-12-2025 2/2 falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. He further submits that out of 09 witnesses only 03 witnesses has been examined in this case.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner by contending that petitioner is the conspirator behind the occurrence. Petitioner in his confessional statement has confessed his complicity in the alleged occurrence.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail is, accordingly, again rejected.

7. 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 four months from today. If any such application is filed before the learned court below, the court concerned shall consider the same on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T