Patna High Court

Keshav Kumar Das @ Papai @ Papai DasversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 25 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: JITENDRA KUMAR

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Keshav Kumar Das, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 304(b) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging dowry death of his wife. He had been in custody for about two years without charge being framed and claimed no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s relationship to the deceased. The High Court, after considering the facts, rejected the bail application, noting the gravity of the charges. However, the Court directed the trial court to complete the trial within one year, to frame charges promptly, and to ensure prosecution witnesses appear, allowing the petitioner to renew his bail plea thereafter.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a dowry death case under Sections 304(b) and 34 of the IPC when the charge has not yet been framed and the accused has been in custody for two years.
Whether the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s relationship to the deceased preclude bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 304(b), 34

Subjects

bail
dowry death
IPC 304(b)
IPC 34
expeditious trial
Article 21
high court
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12063 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2024 Thana- ANGARH District- Purnia
                 ======================================================
                 Keshav Kumar Das @ Papai @ Papai Das, S/o- Late Arun Kumar Das,
                 Resident of village- Kanjiya, P.S- Angarh, District- Purnea

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Raj Kumar, Advocate.
                 For the State            :        Md. Ataur Rahman, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   25-02-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                    2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Sessions Trial No. 525 of 2025 arising out of Angarh P.S. Case

                   No. 05 of 2024 of 2024 dated 10.02.2024 registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 34 of the Indian

                   Penal Code.

                                 3. The previous petition of the petitioner for regular

                   bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2024

                   passed in Cr. Misc. 77312 of 2024 and order dated 14.11.2025

                   passed in Cr. Misc. 63024 of 2025 in view of serious nature of

                   the offence alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is

                   husband of the deceased and he is alleged to have committed

                   dowry death of his wife.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12063 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
                                            2/3




                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2024 i.e. for about two years

          and even charge has not been framed till date.

                       5. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail

          petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

                       6. However, learned APP for the State vehemently

          opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail.

                       7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, serious nature of the offence and petitioner being the

          husband of the deceased, I am not persuaded to enlarge him on

          bail

                       10. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner

          stands rejected.

                       11. However, Article 21 of the Constitution of India

          requires that there should be expeditious trial and hence, learned

          Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within next one year,

          failing which, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer

          for regular bail.

                       12. Learned Trial Court is directed to ensure that

          charge has been framed without any delay and process be issued

          against prosecution witnesses sending the list of the prosecution

          witnesses directly to the Superintendent of Police, Purnea and
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12063 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
                                                          3/3




                        the Superintendent of Police, Purnea, is directed to ensure that

                        the prosecution witnesses attend the court for their examination.

                                     13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the

                        Superintendent of Police, Nalanda at Biharsharif as well as

                        learned Trial Court.




                                                                       (Jitendra Kumar, J)
S.Ali/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…