Patna High Court
Harishankar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The regular bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
Summary
Harishankar Ray, husband of a woman who died by hanging in 2025, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. The petitioner claimed a clean antecedent, alleged that the informant was not an eyewitness, and argued that the death was a suicide, citing a post‑mortem report showing asphyxia due to hanging. The State contended that, under the law, a presumption exists against the husband in dowry‑related deaths and that the petitioner’s family had created circumstances leading to the victim’s suicide. The court noted that anticipatory bail had been granted to other family members but found no sufficient ground to extend bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the court rejected the regular bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the presumption against the husband in dowry death cases
- Whether the post‑mortem evidence of hanging establishes suicide or homicide
- Whether the anticipatory bail granted to other family members extends to the petitioner
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 238, 3(5), 80
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- presumption against husband
- anticipatory bail
- suicide
- post‑mortem
- Criminal Miscellaneous
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1904 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2025 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Harishankar Ray S/O Jawahar Ray R/O Village- Chainpur Chiutahan, P.S-
Paroo, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nachiketa Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Nirmala Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Paroo
P.S. Case No. 145 of 2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that his cousin sister was married to petitioner in the
year 2020, after marriage, the petitioner along with his parents
started torturing her for dowry, further on 24.03.2025, the sister-
in-law of his sister namely Reena (Gotni) called and informed
that named accused persons including the petitioner strangulated
the victim to death, accordingly, the informant came to the place
of occurrence and the dead body was recovered from palani of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1904 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/4
of Vinod at the instance of the mother-in-law of the deceased
and the dead body was sent for postmortem by the police.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner being husband has been falsely implicated in the
instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that marriage
of the petitioner with the deceased was solemnized in the year
2020 and out of the wedlock, two children were born, who
presently are residing with the family of the petitioner. It is also
submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence
and allegation of demand of dowry and torture is also general
and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that from perusal of
the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
informant alleges that named accused persons committed the
occurrence of killing of the deceased but then does not allege
against the petitioner. It is also submitted that Vinod Ray along
with five others had approached this court seeking anticipatory
bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 71852 of 2025 and the same came to
be allowed by an order dated 16.10.2025. It is further submitted
that thereafter Saraswati Devi, mother-in-law also approached
the court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.65852
of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated
26.11.2025. Learned counsel next submits that the dead body of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1904 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
3/4
the deceased was sent for postmortem. It is next submitted that
had the petitioner or his family members been involved in the
occurrence, in that event efforts would have been made to
dispose of the dead body with a view to conceal the evidence,
but then postmortem was done for ascertaining the cause of
death and the postmortem report records asphyxia on account of
hanging as the reason of death. It is thus submitted that victim
committed suicide. It is also submitted that petitioner is in
custody since 07.10.2025
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that what is not in
dispute rather stands admitted is that victim died within seven
years of marriage and as such in law the presumption is against
the husband and his family members. It is also submitted that no
doubt the family members of the petitioner have been granted
the privilege of anticipatory bail but then the case of the
petitioner is to be considered on a different pedestal. It is also
submitted that no doubt the postmortem report records asphyxia
on account of hanging as the cause of death and thus it might be
a possibility that the victim committed suicide but then it is the
duty of the husband to ensure well being of his wife. It is next
submitted that it was husband who created condition conducive
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1904 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
4/4
for the victim to take the extreme step of ending her life. It is
also submitted that in Cr. Misc. No. 71852/2025, except for
Jawahar Ray, who was the father-in-law of the deceased, rest of
the petitioners were agnates of the petitioner and were residing
separately.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
7. The regular bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…