Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotu Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.921 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-219 Year-2023 Thana- PARAIYA District- Gaya ====================================================== Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotu Manjhi, aged about 26 years (Male) S/O Sita Manjhi @ Sita Rishiyasan Village- Kishunpur, PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Adarsh Singh, Advocate Mr. Adarsh Gaurav, Advocate Mr. Rabish Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 08-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, it is a case of dowry death due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand by the petitioner and his family members and the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, namely, Kanchan Kumari.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.921 of 2025(3) dt.08-05-2025 2/2 the deceased never complained about torture to her parents prior to the present occurrence. Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition and he is in custody since 02.07.2023.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the sole responsibility is fixed upon the husband of the deceased.
6. On perusal of the first information report, case diary and impugned order dated 04.07.2024, it appears that petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is specific allegation of set on fire upon the deceased due to which she died and several witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, so I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T