Anant Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90355 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2020 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Anant Kumar S/O Laxmi Narayan Prasad Singh R/O Village- Rampur Charui, P.S- Ghosi, Distt.- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shivendra Prasad, Advocate For the Informant :

Mr. Aradhna Kamal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 08-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sessions Trial No. 297 of 2024 arising out of Jehanabad P.S Case No. 257 of 2020 from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st , Jehanadabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 326, 307, 304(B) 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, it is a case dowry death of the victim due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90355 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2025 2/2 submits that petitioner is the husband of the victim(deceased). He further submits that this a second attempt for regular bail of the petitioner before this Court. Earlier prayer of the petitioner for regular bail is rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25617 of 2024. It is also submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.10.2023 and petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition.

5. However, learned APP for the State oppose the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no fresh ground for considering the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. So, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected once again.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T