Patna High CourtCR. MISC./88522/2025bail rejected

Vinay Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-24Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88522 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2020 Thana- AKILPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Vinay Rai S/o Sipahi Rai Resident of Village - Manash , P.S.- Akilpur, District- Saran (Chapra) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with Akilpur P.S.Case no. 36 of 2020 registered under sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the informant who was married to the petitioner herein in the year 2019 was tortured for dowry. On her protest of illicit relationship between the petitioner and the co-accused, she was assaulted brutally by the petitioner and taken to the hospital where she died in course of treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature. Inspite of the petitioner being in custody since 14.3.2024 and charge having

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88522 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026 2/2 been framed in the learned trial Court on 13.8.2025 not a single witness is being produced by the prosecution. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. A report was called for from the learned trial Court. As per the report received contained in letter dated 19.1.2026 inspite of charge having been framed on 13.8.2025, no witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration, the allegation of assault by the petitioner who happens to be the husband of the deceased, injuries caused by hard and blunt substance having been found in the postmortem report in paragraph no. 44 of the case diary and further, the cause of death is said to be head injury (cardiogenic cerebral damage) together with the trial having commenced in the learned trial Court, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

8. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months, if there is no substantial progress in the trial.

Bibhash (Partha Sarthy, J) U T