Mohan Ray Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3032 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2024 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL District-

Begusarai

====================================================== Mohan Ray S/o Bhola Ray R/o vill - Raghunathpur, P.S. - Sahebpur Kamal, Distt.- Begusarai

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Shivendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ranjeet Patel, Advocate : Mr. Divit Vinod, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sandeep Gautam, Advocate ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶8

4 19-04-2025

¶9

Heard Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for

¶10

the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Gautam representing the informant beside Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP.

¶11

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 117 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged on 27.04.2024 by the informant Nago Yadav.

¶12

As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the marriage of the daughter was solemnized in the year 2020 with Abhimanyu Kumar. He was residing in Delhi for his livelihood but the family was torturing the daughter for dowry. On 25.04.2024, while she was pregnant, was killed. They tried to conceal the dead body, the Police was informed, reached the place, dead body was recovered and sent for post mortem at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai. This followed the F.I.R.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3032 of 2025(4) dt.19-04-2025 2/2

¶15

petitioner is the father-in-law, had no role to play in the matter, the girl committed suicide but a different colour has been given by the prosecution side.

¶16

Mr. Sandeep Gautam representing the informant has taken this Court to the post mortem report to show that cause of death has been recorded as strangulation due to the injuries found therein. He submits that clearly, it is not the case of suicide and/or asphyxia due to hanging rather it is a case of strangulation that too when the lady was pregnant.

¶17

He further submits that the mother-in-law (Rinku Devi) move this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 6294 of 2025 which got rejected on 19.02.2025 by a coordinate Bench.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid facts as also the allegation that has come on record, the cause of death is strangulation, the husband being to Delhi, as recorded in the F.I.R. certainly, the role of parents-in-law cannot be ignored.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail petition stands rejected.

¶20

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶21

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶22

vinayak/- U T

Mohan Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Buddhan Nadaf @ Budhan Nadaf @ Md. Budhan Vs The State of Bihar

Sitaram Ram @ Shri Sitaram Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Nand Kishore Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Bhanu Kumar Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sattan Kumar Mandal Vs The State of Bihar