Patna High Court
BINDESHWARI BINDversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage as the allegations, though largely circumstantial, warranted the petitioners' continued custody pending framing of charges.
Summary
The petitioners, Bindeshwari Bind and his wife Kalawati Devi, applied for regular bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 80(2), 238 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. alleging they were falsely implicated as the father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law of a deceased woman whose body was not recovered. The informant claimed the victim, his daughter, died after a dowry‑related dispute, but the informant was not an eye‑witness and the FIR was based largely on suspicion. The State opposed bail, noting that the alleged death occurred within seven years of marriage, invoking a statutory presumption against the husband and his family. The Court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant bail, stating that the seriousness of the allegations and the missing body warranted continued custody until charges are framed. The petitioners were advised they could renew the bail plea after charge‑framing, and the Court directed that medical care be provided to the ailing petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 80(2), 238 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. given the nature of the allegations
- Whether the lack of an eye‑witness and the missing body preclude the grant of bail
- Whether the statutory presumption applicable to deaths within seven years of marriage affects the bail decision
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 238, 3(5), 80(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- presumption of guilt
- dowry dispute
- missing body
- medical condition
- pre‑charge detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16346 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2025 Thana- SAMHO District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Bindeshwari Bind Son Of Late Jadu Bind Resident Of Village - Jagan
Saidpur, Police Station - Shamho In The District Of Begusarai.
2. Kalawati Devi Wife Of Bindeshwari Bind Resident Of Village - Jagan
Saidpur, Police Station - Shamho In The District Of Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and
the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the
offences under Sections 80(2), 238 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and
are in custody since 13.01.2026 and the informant alleges that
his daughter was married to Mahesh and out of the wedlock, a
child was born who presently is 15 months old. Further, the
accused persons after marriage started demanding a motorcycle
and on account of non-fulfilment of the demand, the victim was
tortured. It is next alleged that on 02.07.2025, he came to know
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16346 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/4
that his daughter died, accordingly, he came back from Punjab
on 03.07.2025 and reached the place of occurrence, but no one
was present and the dead body was missing, thus alleges that the
victim was killed and the dead body was disposed off.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case being
father in -law and mother in-law of the deceased. It is further
submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that informant was in Punjab when the
occurrence is alleged to have taken place, but then he discloses
that he came to know about the death of his daughter but does
not disclose who informed him. It is further submitted that it
was Mahesh who had informed the informant that victim is
missing based on which he came from Punjab. It is further
submitted that as far as allegation of demand of dowry and
torture is alleged, the same is general and omnibus in nature. It
is also submitted that informant is not an eye witness to the
occurrence and the entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It
is further submitted that a dispute had arisen in between the
victim and Mahesh on the issue that victim wanted to live
separately from the petitioners but Mahesh was not agreeing but
then it is submitted that petitioners left the house and started
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16346 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/4
residing separately. It is also submitted that whether the victim
died or is missing is also an aspect of trial as during the course
of investigation, the dead body of the victim was not recovered.
It is also submitted that victim may out of anger left the house.
It is also submitted that husband of the deceased is in custody.
5. The learned A.P.P. opposes the regular bail
application and submits that whether the victim died or is
missing no doubt is an aspect of trial, but then the occurrence
took place within seven years of marriage as such presumption
in law is against the husband and his family members, but then
fairly submits that informant is not an eye witness to the
occurrence.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.
7. The prayer of the petitioners for regular bail stands
rejected.
8. However, petitioners would be at liberty to renew
their prayer for bail after framing of charge.
9. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is suffering
from disease relating to kidney, if what has been submitted by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is true
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16346 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
4/4
in that event, the District Magistrate, Begulsarai, the
Superintendent of Police, Begusarai and the Superintendent of
Jail shall ensure that medical facility is provided to the
petitioner no.1.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned
Principal District Judge, the District Magistrate, Begulsarai, the
Superintendent of Police, Begusarai and the Superintendent of
Jail, Begusarai for their perusal and needful.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.