Patna High Court
Rupdev SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the offence was serious and the presumption under the Evidence Act applied.
Summary
The petitioner, Rupdev Sahani, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 324, 328, 304-B and 34 of the IPC alleging that he, along with co‑accused, demanded dowry and caused the death of the informant's sister by burning her. The petitioner claimed he was a distant relative and had no involvement in the deceased's affairs, asserting false implication. The prosecution highlighted the seriousness of the offence, the presumption of dowry death under Sections 113(A) and 113(B) of the Evidence Act, and noted that other co‑accused had already been granted regular bail. The court examined the material, including the FIR and prior bail orders, and considered the gravity of the charges. Concluding that the offence was serious and the presumption against the accused applied, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the court in granting or refusing anticipatory bail in a dowry‑death case under Sections 324, 328, 304‑B and 34 IPC?
- Whether the presumption under Sections 113(A) and 113(B) of the Evidence Act precludes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner?
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 113(A), 113(B)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304-B, 324, 328, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- IPC
- Evidence Act
- presumption of guilt
- serious offence
- bail discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10328 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2020 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Rupdev Sahani Son of Ramanand Sahani Resident of Village- Jogiya, P.S.-
Harsidhi, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhishek Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmanand Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out
of Muffasil Police Station Case No. 471 of 2020, dated
11.10.2020, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 324/328/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Informant Report
the marriage of the informant’s sister (now, deceased) was
solemnized with the co-accused Anand Mohan Sahni in
the year 2014 and out of their wedlock, two girl children
were born. After the birth of second girl child, the
petitioner, along with other co-accused persons, started
demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry and due to non-
fulfillment of the said demand, the deceased was tortured,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10328 of 2026(3) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
both mentally as well as physically. It is alleged that on
09.10.2020, the petitioner, along with other co-accused
persons, killed the sister of the informant by burning her.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case with ulterior motive. He further submits that the
petitioner is a distant relative, i.e. Nandosi, and he was in
no way connected with the day-to-day affairs of the
deceased and /or her husband. The petitioner is also not
the resident of the village of the husband of the deceased.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that
within seven years of the marriage, the deceased was
killed by her in-laws and the petitioner for demand of
dowry. He further submits that the co-accused Rabri Devi,
who is the sister of the husband of the deceased, and co-
accused Om Prakash Sahani, have been granted regular
bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the materials on record including the impugned
order.
7. Within seven years of the marriage, the informant’s sister
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10328 of 2026(3) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. The
nature of death is not important whether it is natural,
suicidal or accidental but the fact of the matter is that
deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of
her marriage. There is a presumption against the accused
persons under Section 113(A) and 113(B) of the Evidence
Act. The offence is serious in nature and the punishment
thereof is also serious. The First Information Report was
lodged in the year 2020 and the petitioner is named in the
First Information Report itself, though he approached the
learned District Court for grant of anticipatory bail in the
year 2024 and after his anticipatory bail application was
rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, East
Champaran, at Motihari, on 22.05.2024, the petitioner has
filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before
this Court in February, 2026.
8. Accordingly, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail
to the petitioner.
9. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.