Anil Paswan @ Anil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2631 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2022 Thana- KARTAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Anil Paswan @ Anil Kumar Son of Sagar Paswan Resident of villageGhataro, Ps- Kartaha, Dist- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Kartaha P.S. Case No.92 of 2022 registered for the offence under sections 304-B/201/341/323/504/506/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.10.2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.68533 of 2023. The aforesaid order dated 19.10.2023 reads as under :- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is the husband who is in custody since 09.12.2022 in connection with Kartaha P.S. Case No.92/22 registered for the offence punishable under Sections

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2631 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026 2/2 304B/201/341/323/504/506/ 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, Kajal Kumari was married with the petitioner Anil Paswan in the year 2022. Thereafter, for demand of dowry, she has been killed and her deadbody was thrown in the river.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there was intercaste marriage as the petitioner and the deceased were in relationship. He submits that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and no cogent material has come to show the complicity of this petitioner in the alleged crime.

5.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him bail. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial."

4.

Considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and also the fact that in the trial all the witnesses have been examined, I am not inclined to review my earlier order. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/- U T