Patna High Court
Md. Jalauddin @ Md. SahirversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners subject to the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, aged 78 and 75, are the father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law of a woman who was found hanged, and they were implicated in a dowry‑death case under Sections 103(1), 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. They sought anticipatory bail, arguing that they are senior citizens with clean antecedents, that the informant is not an eyewitness, and that the FIR does not specify any dowry demand. The petitioners further contended that the post‑mortem indicated death by asphyxia due to hanging and that independent witnesses support a suicide conclusion. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted the lack of direct evidence against the petitioners and their willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in a dowry‑death case.
- Whether the petitioners can be considered prima facie liable based on the FIR and the informant’s statements.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 80
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- senior citizens
- false implication
- FIR
- Section 103
- Section 80
- Section 3(5)
- Section 482
- suicide vs homicide
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16510 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2025 Thana- KATIHAR MUFFASIL District- Katihar
======================================================
1. Md. Jalauddin @ Md. Sahir Son of Md. Rafique Sardar Resident of
Mohalla- Makhdumpur, P. S- Mufassil, District- Katihar
2. Fatkan Khatoon @ Fatkania @ Fatkaniya wife of Md. Jalauddin @ Md.
Sahir Resident of Mohalla- Makhdumpur, P. S- Mufassil, District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 28-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 80,
3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no.1 is aged about 78 years and petitioner no.2 is aged
about 75 years and are persons with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that his daughter was married to Mubarak
about two years back and out of the wedlock a son was born,
further the accused persons used to torture her for dowry, for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16510 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
2/5
which, a panchayati was convened, but still the accused persons
continued with torture and assault, further on 29.10.2025 at 4
P.M. the informant was informed that his daughter has been
killed by her husband and the accused persons by hanging her,
accordingly he reached the place of occurrence and saw the
dead body of his daughter lying in the verandah and the accused
persons had fled, thus alleges that his daughter was killed by the
accused persons including the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case being
father-in law and mother-in-law. It is further submitted that the
victim died within seven years of marriage but then all deaths
are not dowry death. It is further submitted that though
informant alleges that the victim was tortured for non-
fulfillment of the dowry demand but then from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the same
does not even remotely suggest that as to what was demanded
by the accused persons in form of dowry. It is also submitted
that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence nor any
case came to be instituted either by the informant or the victim
alleging torture, for non-fulfillment of dowry demand in these
two years. It is next submitted that the entire allegation hinges
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16510 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
3/5
around suspicion. It is further submitted that had the petitioners
been involved in the occurrence along with others, in that event,
efforts would have been made to dispose of the dead body with
a view to conceal evidence but then the dead body was lying in
the house and was sent for postmortem for ascertaining the
cause of death. It is also submitted that whenever any dispute
arises in between the husband and the wife and the occurrence
of the nature as alleged takes place, the entire family members
are implicated in a mechanical manner with general and
omnibus allegation. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioners
are aged about 78 and 75 years and have remained a person with
clean antecedent and have other sons and daughter-in-law but
they never came to be implicated in such a case and they also
reside separately from the husband of the deceased but then in a
mechanical manner the informant implicated them. It is also
submitted that postmortem report records cause of death as
asphyxia on account of hanging. It is thus submitted that it
appears that the victim being aggrieved by her husband
committed suicide. It is also submitted that if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, the petitioners will
not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove
their innocence. It is also submitted that in course of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16510 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
4/5
investigation, statement of independent witnesses were
recorded, who have also stated that the victim committed
suicide.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the
informant is not in a position to rebut the submission of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that
informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence, FIR does not
disclose that what was being demanded in dowry and the
allegation of assault against the petitioners is general and
omnibus in nature and petitioners are senior citizens with clean
antecedent and have other sons and daughter-in-law but they
never came to be implicated in such a case and they reside
separately.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial court where the
case is pending/successor court in connection with Muffasil P.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16510 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
5/5
Case No.258/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…