Patna High Court
Prem PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that the statutory presumption against the husband in dowry‑death cases, coupled with the seriousness of the allegations, precludes the grant of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Prem Paswan, applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, alleging that he was falsely implicated in the death of his wife, who died within seven years of marriage. The petitioner argued that the informant was not an eye‑witness, that the FIR was lodged after the post‑mortem and cremation, and that there was no evidence of a dowry demand or concealment of the body. The State contended that the death, reportedly due to asphyxia from antemortem hanging, fell within the statutory presumption against the husband in dowry‑death cases, and that the husband could have created conditions leading to suicide. The Court examined the statutory presumption, the nature of the evidence, and the timing of the FIR, and concluded that the presumption and the seriousness of the allegations outweighed the petitioner's claims. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of the statutory presumption against the husband in dowry‑death cases under the Dowry Prohibition Act?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 80(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. ¾
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- presumption of guilt
- criminal procedure
- homicide
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2114 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2025 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Prem Paswan Son of Umesh Paswan Resident of Village Mai, P.S.- Hilsa,
District - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha
======================================================
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 Hilsa
P.S. Case No. 66 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 80(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and sections ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody
since 16.05.2025. It is next submitted that the informant alleges
that his daughter was married to the petitioner in July, 2024,
after marriage, the petitioner and other co-accused persons
started torturing his daughter for non-fulfillment of the demand
of dowry of a motorcycle, further, on 30.01.2025, the informant
received an information that his daughter was admitted at Hilsa
Hospital, accordingly, he reached the hospital but found her
dead.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2114 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
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 from
perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would
manifest that allegation of demand of dowry and torture is
general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that no doubt
the death of the daughter of the informant took place within
seven years of marriage and in law presumption is against the
husband and his family members but then all deaths are not
dowry deaths. It is also submitted that informant is not an eye-
witness to the occurrence and from perusal of the allegation as
alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that informant was
informed that his daughter was admitted at Hilsa Hospital where
he came and found her dead. It is also submitted that had the
petitioner and his family members been involved in the
occurrence, in that event, efforts would have been made to
dispose off the dead body with a view to conceal evidence but
then the victim was taken to hospital where she died and
thereafter postmortem was conducted for ascertaining the cause
of death. It is also submitted that the FIR came to be instituted
by the informant after the postmortem was done and body
cremated. It is thus submitted that till cremation of the body the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2114 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
informant had no grievance with the petitioner and his family
members, as such it appears that by way of after thought the
instant FIR came to be instituted.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the
bail application of the petitioner and submits that what is not in
dispute rather stands admitted is that victim died within seven
years of marriage and presumption in law is against the husband
and his family members. It is also submitted that the cause of
death has been opined to be asphyxia on account of antemortem
hanging. It is thus submitted that it might be a possibility that
the victim committed suicide but then who was responsible for
the same. It is submitted that petitioner being husband of the
deceased was responsible for well being of his wife but then it
appears that he created condition conducive for the victim to
take the extreme step of ending her life.
6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the
learned APP, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on
bail.
7. The bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…