Patna High Court
Jitendra Lal Karn @ Jitendra Kumar KarnversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
The Court denied regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Lal Karn, was charged under IPC sections 304B (dowry death), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) and 34 (common intention), as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for allegedly administering poison to the informant's daughter, who later died. He applied for regular bail, claiming innocence, a clean antecedent, that the case dates back to 2013, a compromise petition was filed, and co‑accused have been acquitted. The State opposed bail, noting that the petitioner is named in the FIR, that he demanded money from the deceased, and that the trial is ongoing with only two of eleven prosecution witnesses examined. The Court observed that the trial is still in progress, the nature of the offences is serious, and therefore was not inclined to grant bail. Consequently, the petition for regular bail was rejected and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail pending trial for offences under IPC sections 304B, 201, 34 and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the stage of the trial and the seriousness of the alleged offences justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- dowry death
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- criminal procedure
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17844 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2013 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Jitendra Lal Karn @ Jitendra Kumar Karn, Male-age about 48 years, Son of
Late Birju Lal Karn, Resident of village - Kolhuara, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District-
Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
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
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
4 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17844 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
2/3
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.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
regular bail of the petitioner.
6. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17844 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
3/3
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.
7. Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby
rejected.
8. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial
as early as possible.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.