Rahul Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19407 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2025 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- Munger ====================================================== Rahul Sharma, aged about 30 years, Gender (Male) S/o Late Piyush Sharma, Resident of Village- Govindpur, P.S.- Sangrampur, District- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravish Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Muneshwar Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State, learned counsel for the Informant and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner is in custody in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 85 and 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, the informant alleged that his sister married with the petitioner on 22.11.2019, thereafter she went to her matrimonial house where she was subjected to torture and cruelty by the accused persons including the petitioner for dowry demand and further alleged that the petitioner has an illicit relationship with other lady, due to which, all the FIR named accused persons murdered the sister of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that petitioner is the husband of the deceased and has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19407 of 2026(8) dt.17-07-2026 2/2 never tortured or assaulted the deceased nor has abused her and has demanded any dowry from the family members of the deceased. Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition and he is in custody since 30.12.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the Informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against him for committing the murder of the sister of the informant.

6. On perusal of the first information report, case diary, postmortem report of the deceased and impugned order dated 28.02.2026, it appears that petitioner is named in the FIR and from perusal of the postmortem report of the deceased, it appears that the doctor has opined the cause of death due to asphyxia caused by throttling and in paras-7, 8 and 9 of the case diary have supported the case of the prosecution and several witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution, so I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

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

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T