Patna High Court
Radhe MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the serious nature of the offences and the statutory presumption against the husband in dowry‑death cases warranted denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Radhe Mahto, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged dowry‑related murder of his sister‑in‑law. He claimed to have a clean record and argued that he could not have informed the informant of the killing, suggesting the allegations were fabricated. The State and the informant contended that the victim died within seven years of marriage, invoking the statutory presumption against the husband in dowry death cases, and highlighted the cremation of the body to conceal the cause of death. The court examined the credibility of the informant’s statements and the seriousness of the charges, noting that the trial was set to commence. Concluding that the seriousness of the offences and the statutory presumption warranted caution, the court denied bail to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a dowry‑death case under Sections 304B, 201 and 34 IPC.
- Whether the presumption against the husband in dowry‑death cases defeats the bail application.
- Whether the informant’s claim that the petitioner admitted to the killing affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B, 34
Subjects
- dowry death
- IPC 304B
- IPC 201
- IPC 34
- bail
- presumption against husband
- murder
- cruelty
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23663 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-500 Year-2023 Thana- PUPRI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Radhe Mahto S/o- Shital Mahto Village- Belmohan Ps- Pupri Dist- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and being husband
has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant
and is in custody since 12.09.2024. It is next submitted that
informant alleges that his sister was married to the petitioner on
31.05.2023 and after marriage, the petitioner along with his
family members were torturing the victim for non-fulfillment of
demand of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of dowry. It is next alleged that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23663 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
2/4
on 18.11.2023, the petitioner called the informant on his mobile
number 7255070741 from his mobile number 6309102282 and
disclosed that his sister has been killed and her dead body has
been cremated. Accordingly, the informant along with his other
family members went to the place of occurrence and came to
know that petitioner and his family members have killed his
sister and the dead body was cremated with a view to conceal
the evidence regarding the cause of death. It is also alleged that
they came to know that the victim was strangulated to death.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner being husband has been falsely implicated. It is next
submitted that from perusal of the allegations, as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that the same does not inspire confidence
for the reason that it does not appear probable that petitioner on
18.11.2023 would have called the informant from his mobile
informing that he has killed his sister and the dead body has
been cremated. It is also submitted that had the petitioner or his
family members killed the deceased, in that event, they would
not have informed the informant. It is next submitted that the
date of occurrence is 18.11.2023 and the FIR was instituted on
20.11.2023. It is further submitted that the informant on coming
to know that his sister died a natural death, the informant along
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23663 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
3/4
with his family members came on 18.11.2023 and participated
in the cremation and thereafter by way of afterthought the
instant FIR came to be instituted on 20.11.2023.
5. the learned APP and the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the informant oppose the bail application and
submit that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that
victim died within seven years of marriage and in law the
presumption is against the husband and his family members. It
is also submitted that had the dead body been sent for post-
mortem, the cause of death would have been ascertained but
then the body was cremated and the same was done with an
intent to conceal the evidence regarding cause of death. It is also
submitted that informant and his family members did not
participate in the cremation of the deceased.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner reiterates and submits that it absolutely
does not stand to reason that petitioner would have called the
informant disclosing that he has killed his sister and thereafter
the body has been cremated, it is submitted that this amply
demonstrates that the said allegation has been alleged only to
give seriousness to the case when informant on coming to know
about the death of his sister participated in the funeral along
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23663 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
4/4
with his other family members.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that charges in the case has been
framed and the trial is to commence.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the
petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail
to the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Pupri P.S.
Case No.500 of 2023, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M.,
Pupri at Sitamarhi.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…