Dismissed¶18

Jitendra Lal Karn @ Jitendra Kumar Karn v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC24 Jun 2026CR. MISC./17844/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

None; prayer for regular bail rejected (paras 19-20). Ancillary direction: learned trial Court to expedite the trial as early as possible (para 21). ¶18

Jitendra Lal Karn @ Jitendra Kumar Karn Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; prayer for regular bail rejected (paras 19-20). Ancillary direction: learned trial Court to expedite the trial as early as possible (para 21).

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner (named in the FIR, husband of the deceased) in connection with Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2025 arising out of Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 249 of 2013 (offences under Sections 304(B), 201/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act).

¶10

Court's answer

Stage of trial weighed by the Court: charges were framed against accused persons (including the petitioner) on 20.02.2025 and eleven prosecution witnesses are named in the chargesheet; the trial had commenced when the bail prayer was considered.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances (including that only two of the eleven prosecution witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, the trial being under progress) and the submissions of learned counsel, the Court was not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner; the prayer for regular bail was rejected.

¶18

Key takeaways

Consequential direction: the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail sought in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2025 (Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 249 of 2013; offences under Sections 304(B), 201/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act) by the husband of the deceased, named in the FIR, alleging false implication and citing a compromise petition filed during investigation, acquittal of co-accused, clean antecedent and custody since 25.11.2024; the learned APP opposed. Noting that the marriage was solemnized on 01.05.2013, the deceased allegedly died of poisoning in Delhi on 24.06.2013 after a demand of Rs. 50,000/-, charges were framed on 20.02.2025 against the accused persons, eleven prosecution witnesses are named with only two examined and cross-examined, and the trial is under progress (next evidence date 20.05.2026), the Court declined regular bail and rejected the prayer, directing the learned trial Court to expedite the trial as early as possible. Oral order dated 24-06-2026 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya, Patna High Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.17844 of 2026.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17844 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2013 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Jitendra Lal Karn @ Jitendra Kumar Karn, Male-age about 48 years, Son of Late Birju Lal Karn, Resident of village - Kolhuara, P.S.- Kalyanpur, DistrictSamastipur.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER

¶8

4 24-06-2026

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶10

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2025 arising out of Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 249 of 2013 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶11

Allegation against the petitioner and his family members is to have administered poison to the daughter of the informant, as a result of which she died.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. He further submits

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17844 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026 2/3

¶14

that the present case is of the year 2013 and the informant side during course of investigation itself has filed a compromise petition. He next submits that the other co-accused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial Court as stated in para-8 of the petition. Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition is in custody since 25.11.2024.

¶15

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

¶16

From perusal of the FIR, status report and also perused the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Samastipur, it appears that petitioner is named in the FIR. From perusal of the records, it also appears that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the petitioner on 01.05.2013 and soon thereafter the petitioner (accused) started demanding Rs. 50,000/- from the deceased for construction of his house. On 24.06.2013, the informant received the information that his daughter was killed by the accused persons in Delhi by administering her poison. It also appears that in this case charges have been framed against the accused persons including the petitioner and the trial has commenced and only two prosecution witnesses have been examined and other

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17844 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026 3/3

¶18

prosecution witnesses including the informant and official witnesses are yet to be examined. From perusal of the status report vide letter no. 106 of 2026 dated 20.05.2026, it also appears that charges has been framed against accused persons on 20.02.2025 and eleven prosecution witnesses are named in the chargesheet. Out of eleven prosecution witnesses two prosecution witnesses have been examined and cross-examined and process for appearance of the witnesses have already been issued against the non-official prosecution witnesses and the next date fixed for evidence is 20.05.2026 as well as the fact that the trial is under progress, so considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the above named petitioner.

¶19

Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby

¶20

rejected.

¶21

Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible.

¶22

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)

¶23

Anand Kr.

¶24

U T

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Samastipur, referred to as the impugned order while considering the present regular bail prayer; its operative nature (grant/rejection) is not described in the text.¶16
District and Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Samastipur · 09.01.2026
Prior proceeding
Petitioner seeks regular bail in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2025 arising out of Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 249 of 2013, instituted for offences under Sections 304(B), 201/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.¶10
Prior proceeding
Allegation: petitioner and his family members administered poison to the daughter of the informant, resulting in her death.¶11
Prior proceeding
Marriage of the deceased solemnized with the petitioner on 01.05.2013.¶16
Prior proceeding
Soon after marriage, the petitioner allegedly started demanding Rs. 50,000/- from the deceased for construction of his house.¶16
Prior proceeding
On 24.06.2013 the informant received information that his daughter was killed by the accused persons in Delhi by administering poison.¶16
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's contentions: he is innocent, falsely implicated, and is the husband of the deceased.¶12
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's contention: case of the year 2013; the informant side filed a compromise petition during the course of investigation itself.¶14
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's contention (as stated in para-8 of the petition): other co-accused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial Court.¶14
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's contention: clean antecedent (para 3 of the petition); in custody since 25.11.2024.¶14
Prior proceeding
Per status report vide letter no. 106 of 2026 dated 20.05.2026: charges framed against accused persons (including petitioner) on 20.02.2025; eleven prosecution witnesses named in the chargesheet.¶18
Prior proceeding
Trial progress: two prosecution witnesses examined and cross-examined; process already issued against the non-official prosecution witnesses.¶18
Prior proceeding
Next date fixed for evidence is 20.05.2026; trial is under progress.¶18

Jitendra Lal Karn @ Jitendra Kumar Karn v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Lal Karn @ Jitendra Kumar Karn v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Most. Dhano Devi and Ors. Vs Vinay Prasad Verma and Ors.

Shankar Thakur, Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi

Shivam Kumar @ Chuhwa Vs The State of Bihar

Vishal Kumar @ Fudan Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Gautam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar