Rocky Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88644 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-334 Year-2024 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Rocky Kumar Son of Mukesh Kumar Singh Resident of village - Bilandpur, P.S.- Mahua, District - Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 334 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 304B, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner alongwith other 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. Learned counsel further submitted that initially complaint was filed by the mother of the deceased and later on, under Section

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88644 of 2024(3) dt.25-06-2025 2/2 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. the FIR was registered. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioners. No specific overt act is alleged against the petitioners. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has two criminal antecedents.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. Learned APP further submitted that as per the material available in the case diary, several witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also petitioner being a husband of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail is rejected with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned court below and seek regular bail.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T