Patna High Court
UMESH SAHNIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail as the allegations do not prima facie attract Section 80 and he has shown no connection to the dowry dispute.
Summary
The petitioner, Umesh Sahni, was implicated in a murder case (PS Case No.537 of 2024) alleged to involve dowry demands and the killing of the informant's daughter. He applied for pre‑arrest bail, asserting that he has no relationship with the deceased's family and that the accusation arose from a confusion of names, as the husband of the deceased shares a similar name. The State opposed the bail, contending that the petitioner is a co‑accused in offences punishable under Sections 80, 238 and 61(2) of the BNS. The Court examined the FIR and noted that Section 80, which deals with cruelty or harassment in dowry matters, does not prima facie apply to the petitioner, who denied any involvement. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on pre‑arrest bail, subject to a bond and sureties, and ordered the district court to verify his criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is liable to be arrested under Sections 80, 238 and 61(2) of the BNS in the present case
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite the allegations of murder and dowry‑related offences
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 238, 61(2), 80
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- dowry death
- murder
- name confusion
- Section 80 BNS
- Section 238 BNS
- Section 61(2) BNS
- Section 482(2) BNSS
- Bihar criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11946 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-537 Year-2024 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Umesh Sahni Son of Satahu Sahani Resident of Village - Rewa Basantpur,
Malah Tola, P.S.- Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar Anand, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar,
learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with
Saraiya P.S.Case No.537 of 2024, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 80, 238, 61(2) of BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner
along with the other co-accused persons killed the daughter of
the informant and disposed of her dead-body, due to non-
fulfilment of the demand of the dowry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has
not committed any offence. Learned counsel in paragraph no.8
of the present bail application has specifically stated that
petitioner has no relation with the informant or with the husband
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11946 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
of the deceased, namely, Umesh Sahani. Petitioner has not
participated in assault or demand of dowry and in the
commission of murder.
5.Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the respective parties and on perusal of the allegations made
in the FIR, it appears that the name of the husband of the
deceased has been mentioned as ‘Umesh Sahni,’ whereas the
present petitioner, who is a co-villager, bears a similar name,
i.e., Umesh Sahni. It further appears that the petitioner has been
implicated in the present case merely on suspicion.
7. In such circumstances, prima facie, the offence
under Section 80 of BNS does not appear to be attracted against
the petitioner, as the said provision pertains to acts of cruelty or
harassment in connection with demand of dowry by the husband
or his relatives. In paragraph no. 8 of the present bail
application, the petitioner has specifically denied having any
connection with the matrimonial family of the deceased. The
petitioner has prima facie made out a case to be released on pre-
arrest bail.
8. The petitioner is directed to be released on pre-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11946 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
learned district court within a period of four weeks from today,
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned ACJM-4th (West), Muzaffarpur/concerned court, in
connection with Saraiya P.S.Case No.537 of 2024, subject to
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS of 2023
9. The learned district court is directed to verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the
petitioner is involved in some other cases as what has been
stated in paragraph No.3 of the bail application, this order will
automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U T
Checking your session…