Patna High Court
Himanshu kumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted given the seriousness of the charges and the progress of the trial.
Summary
Himanshu Kumar, the son‑in‑law of the deceased, was charged under sections 302, 307, 326 and 34 of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for allegedly pouring kerosene on his wife and causing her and her child’s death. He applied for regular bail, claiming false implication and prolonged custody since August 2023. The prosecution presented that nine out of ten witnesses had already been examined, indicating substantial progress in the trial. The court noted the seriousness of the allegations, the ongoing trial, and the lack of any compelling reason to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected and the trial was directed to be expedited.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a murder and dowry‑related case pending trial.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 326, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- dowry death
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- criminal trial
- trial delay
- court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12856 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-842 Year-2023 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Himanshu Kumar Son of Bipin Mishra Resident of Village - Bada Jagarnath,
P.S. - Ahiyapur, Dist. - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate
Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of
regular bail in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case no. 842 of
2023 registered under sections 302, 307, 326 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that on reaching the sasural of his daughter, he saw the accused
persons including the petitioner herein who happens to be his
son-in-law pour kerosene oil on his daughter and lighted her up.
He further states that as a result of the occurrence of burning,
both his daughter and her son were killed. His son-in-law i.e. the
petitioner herein had been pressurizing her to give him divorce.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12856 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Inspite of his being
in custody since 22.8.2023 and cooperating in the trial, the trial has
still not concluded. As per instructions received, the Investigating
Officer is not appearing in the learned Court below to depose and for
this reason the trial remains pending. It is submitted that the
petitioner having remained in custody since 22.8.2023, he be
enlarged on bail. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial and to abide
by any conditions which may be laid by this Court for his release on
bail.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for
the State.
6. A report was called for from the learned trial Court.
As per the report received contained in letter dated 20.2.2026 of
the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, out of the ten
prosecution witnesses as mentioned in the chargesheet, nine
witnesses have been examined.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in
the FIR wherein the petitioner who happens to be the husband
of the deceased is said to have poured kerosene oil on the body
of the informant’s daughter and of having burnt her together
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12856 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
with the progress in the trial in the learned trial Court, the Court
is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is
rejected.
8. It is further directed that in case the Investigating
Officer of the present Ahiyapur P.S. Case no. 842 of 2023 has
not already been examined in the trial in the learned trial Court,
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur shall ensure
his appearance on the next date and his examination in the trial.
9. The trial Court will expedite the disposal of the
case.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.