Patna High Court
Uday Kumar RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
Bail was denied because, despite not being named in the FIR, the petitioner, as the husband, bears the evidentiary burden under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Summary
The petitioner, Uday Kumar Rai, husband of a deceased woman, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The FIR alleged that the deceased's son‑in‑law stabbed her while she was sleeping on the roof, and four persons were named as accused; the petitioner’s name does not appear in the accused column. The court noted that, although not formally accused, the petitioner was present in the matrimonial home at the relevant time and, as husband, was in the best position to explain the circumstances of his wife’s death. Relying on Section 111 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the court held that the burden of proving facts especially within his knowledge rests on him. On the material before the court, it was not satisfied that the petitioner could be released on bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, with a direction that the petitioner may renew the prayer after six months if the trial is delayed.
Issues considered
- Whether a person not named in the FIR but being the husband of the deceased can be granted regular bail.
- Whether Section 111 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 imposes a burden of explanation on the petitioner sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — s. 111
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- regular bail
- burden of proof
- Section 111
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
- husband of deceased
- FIR
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14984 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2025 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Uday Kumar Rai S/o Late Satya Narayan Rai R/o Village - Harpur Bhindi,
P.S - Tajpur, District - Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad,APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
5 27-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Tajpur P.S. Case No. 139 of 2025, registered under Sections
103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is the
husband of the deceased. Initially, the FIR was lodged with the
allegation that while his daughter was sleeping on the roof of
the house, her husband was stabbed. The FIR records that the
son-in-law, namely, Uday Rai, had come down at 11 P.M.
Specific allegations have been levelled against four persons. The
petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been in custody
since 04.09.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14984 of 2026(5) dt.27-05-2026
2/3
present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not
referred to in the accused column of the FIR, has no criminal
antecedent, and has been in custody since 04.09.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considered. Though the petitioner is not named in
the accused column of the FIR, the undisputed fact remains that
he is the husband of the deceased and was present in the
matrimonial home at the relevant time. As the husband, the
petitioner was best placed, and indeed was under a duty, to
account for the circumstances attending his wife's death and to
ensure her safety and well-being. The burden of explaining what
transpired, in these circumstances, rests primarily upon him by
virtue of the principle embodied in Section 111 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which provides that where any fact
is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him. At this stage, and on the material
placed before this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant bail
to the petitioner. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.
7. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the
petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months.
8. It is made clear that any observation made herein is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14984 of 2026(5) dt.27-05-2026
3/3
prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Ansul, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.