Patna High Court
SUBIN KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Subin Kumar, was arrested in connection with a dowry‑death case involving his wife’s death, alleged to have occurred within a year of marriage. He faces charges under IPC Sections 341, 323, 498A, 307, 34, 304B, 302 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as allegations of assault and murder. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the informant, who is not an eyewitness, fabricated the allegations and that the case rests on mere suspicion. The State’s counsel highlighted that the marriage took place in 2022, the death in 2023, the post‑mortem indicated strangulation, and that the trial is already underway with three witnesses examined, creating a presumption against the petitioner. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the evidence presented, and the ongoing trial, the Court declined to grant bail, rejecting the regular bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a dowry‑death case involving multiple serious offences under the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 304B, 307, 323, 34, 341, 498A
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- IPC
- Section 498A
- murder
- presumption against accused
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22304 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2023 Thana- TRIVENIGANJ District- Supaul
======================================================
SUBIN KUMAR S/o Parshuram Chauhan R/o vill - Latuna, ward no. 3, P.S.-
Triveniganj, Distt.- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 24-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Triveniganj P.S. Case No.105/2023, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498(A), 307 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Later on Sections
304(B) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code were added.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is husband and has been falsely implicated in the instant
case by the informant, alleging that her daughter who was married
to the petitioner was killed by the accused persons including the
petitioner on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire
allegation hinges around suspicion. It is further submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22304 of 2025(6) dt.24-02-2026
2/2
Court made a specific query from the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner that as to when the marriage in between
the deceased and petitioner was performed, on which, it is
submitted that he does not have any instruction on the issue nor
the FIR discloses the date of marriage. At this stage, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that
marriage in between the petitioner and the deceased was
performed in the year 2022 and the occurrence took place in the
year 2023 i.e. within an year of marriage. It is also submitted that
though informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence but then
presumption in law is against the petitioner. It is further submitted
that the postmortem report also records asphyxia on account of
strangulation. It is next submitted that trial has commenced and
three witnesses have been examined, as such the trial is going on.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not
inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
6. The regular bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…