IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5835 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2024 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Sharma Son of Bihari Lal Sharma R/o - Singhiyghat, P.S - Bibhutipur, District - Samastipur, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP For the Informant : Mr. Bishwanath Mahto, Advocate Mr. Dhandev Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 3 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 331 of 2024 (S.T. No. 272 of 2025) instituted for the offence under Sections 85 & 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Prosecution case in short is that daughter of the informant has been done to death at her matrimonial house by her in-laws due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 12.01.2025. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5835 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026 2/2 paragraph No. 3 of the bail application. 5. It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. There is no specific allegation attributed to the petitioner, rather allegation is general and omnibus in nature. There is delay of eight (8) days in lodging the FIR. Postmortem report suggest the cause of death due to suicidal hanging. Charge sheet has already been submitted in this case. It is submitted that two witnesses have been examined in this case hitherto. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence as also since the trial has commenced, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is hereby rejected at this stage. 8. However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below, if the trial is not concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Raj Kishore/- (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) U T