Patna High Court

Babloo Jha @ Babloo Kumar JhaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 April 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage of the investigation.

Summary

The petitioner, Babloo Jha, sought regular bail in a criminal case registered under sections 80, 61(2) and 238 of the BNS for the alleged murder of his wife, Muskan Kumar, who was reportedly subjected to dowry‑related cruelty. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, as the husband, was involved in the killing and concealment of the body, and highlighted the absence of any information given to the informant and lack of parental participation in the cremation. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating that the allegations were vague and that he had informed the deceased’s parents about the incident. The State opposed bail, arguing that the FIR implicated the petitioner and that the circumstances suggested mala‑fide conduct. The court, after considering the facts, declined to grant bail at this stage, directing the petitioner to re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending and ordering the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner under sections 80, 61(2) and 238 of the BNS in view of the alleged dowry‑related murder.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 238, 61(2), 80

Subjects

bail
dowry death
cruelty
murder
sections 80, 61(2), 238
BNS
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12527 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-378 Year-2025 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Babloo Jha @ Babloo Kumar Jha S/o Dinesh Jha Resident of Village- Ali
                 Neura, P.S.- Minapur, Dist.- Muzaffarpur
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Sanjay Parasmani, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   08-04-2026                       Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under sections 80, 61 (2)

                   and 238 of the BNS.

                                3.     The prosecution case, in brief, is that Muskan

                   Kumar (the deceased) was married to the petitioner in the year

                   2024. It is alleged that she was subjected to cruelty on account

                   of non-fulfilment of a dowry demand for a motorcycle. The

                   deceased is said to have informed the informant about such

                   demand. It is further alleged that on 03.09.2025, the deceased

                   was killed and her body was concealed.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in

                   connection with the present case. It is further submitted that the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12527 of 2026(3) dt.08-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      nature of the allegations is general and omnibus. It has further

                      been submitted that the petitioner had informed the parents of

                      the deceased about the occurrence.

                                   5. Per contra, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed

                      the prayer for bail and submitted that, from a perusal of the

                      F.I.R., it is clear that the petitioner is the husband of the

                      deceased, and no information regarding the occurrence was

                      given to the informant. It is further submitted that none from the

                      parental side of the deceased participated in the cremation of the

                      body, and no post-mortem examination was conducted, which

                      prima facie reflects the mala fide conduct of the petitioner.

                                   Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

                      the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this

                      stage. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail

                      after six months, if the trial is not concluded within the said

                      period. Further, The learned trial court is directed to expedite the

                      trial.




                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…