Patna High Court
Md. KabirversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Md. Kabir (brother‑in‑law) and Md. Sagir (husband), sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a dowry‑death case (PS No. 297/2023) involving offences under IPC Sections 304B, 201, 34 and Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3 and 4. They claimed a clean record and alleged that they were falsely implicated by the informant, noting that earlier anticipatory bail had been granted to the victim’s father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law. The State argued that the husband had become an accused during investigation, citing evidence of the victim’s body being buried without family knowledge and a post‑mortem indicating throttling. The court considered the State’s submission that the husband’s involvement was now established and that the family’s actions suggested participation. Consequently, the court declined to extend anticipatory bail to the petitioners, rejecting their prayer.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in a case involving dowry death, IPC Sections 304B, 201, 34 and Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3, 4.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- criminal procedure
- bail
- asphyxia
- common intention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-297 Year-2023 Thana- NAUHATTA District- Saharsa
======================================================
1. Md. Kabir S/o Md. Akbar @ Md. Akbar Ali Resident of village - Chandrain,
Ward No. 13, P.S - Nauhatta, District - Saharsa (Dewar / Brother in -law of
deceased)
2. Md. Sagir S/o Md. Akbar @ Md. Akbar Ali Resident of village - Chandrain,
Ward No. 13, P.S - Nauhatta, District - Saharsa (Husband of deceased)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rupesh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Sucheta Yadav
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Nauhatta P.S. Case No. 297 of 2023 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that her daughter was married to Md. Sagir (petitioner
no. 2) about 7 years back, further for the last two years, the
family members of the husband of the victim were demanding
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25 of 2026(2) dt.18-02-2026
2/4
Rs. 2 lakh and when the demand was not met, the victim was
sent to her parental home, further about 17 days back, the father-
in-law came and took the victim back to her matrimonial home,
further on 30-12-2023 at 7 AM, she was informed on her mobile
that her daughter has been killed, accordingly she reached the
place of occurrence but could not find her daughter nor any
family members were present and three little children of her
daughter were crying in the courtyard, thus alleges that the
accused persons committed the occurrence and disposed of the
dead body.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners, being brother-in-law and husband, have been falsely
implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next
submitted that earlier Md. Akbar and Halima Khatoon had
approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr.
Misc No. 24021 of 2024 and the same came to be allowed by an
order dated 23-7-2024.
5. At this stage, learned APP submits that while
granting the privilege of anticipatory bail to Md. Akbar and
Halima Khatoon, the fact which was taken into consideration
was that the husband of the deceased was not implicated as an
accused. The learned APP further submits that there is specific
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25 of 2026(2) dt.18-02-2026
3/4
allegation of demand of dowry and the victim was also sent
back to her matrimonial home when demand of dowry was not
met, but later the father-in-law came to the parental home of the
victim and took her back to her matrimonial home and thereafter
the victim was killed. It is also submitted that the accused
persons without informing the informant and her family
members got the dead body buried and when the case came to
be instituted, it appears that body was excavated and was sent
for post-mortem and the doctor opined the cause of death to be
asphyxia on account of throttling. It is further submitted that no
doubt the husband is not an accused in the FIR as such it was
presumed that the family members have been implicated for
ulterior reason leading to grant of anticipatory bail to father-in-
law and mother-in-law, but then during the course of
investigation, the husband also came to be implicated. It is also
submitted that the fact that dead body of the victim was buried
without informing the family members that amply demonstrates
the involvement of the family members of the husband of the
deceased as it is not possible for the husband alone to bury the
dead body. It is submitted that investigation in the case is
continuing.
6. Considering the submission made by learned APP,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25 of 2026(2) dt.18-02-2026
4/4
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioners is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…