Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ajay Kumar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The application for cancellation of anticipatory bail is dismissed, and the bail remains in force.

Summary

Ajay Kumar Sharma filed an application seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Prabhat Kumar, the husband of his deceased daughter Muskan Kumari, alleging that the bail was obtained by suppressing material facts and making false statements. Muskan was married on 07.12.2023 and later died on 20.01.2026, with the informant alleging dowry harassment, administration of unknown medicines, and poisoning leading to liver failure. The trial court had granted bail based on a death summary from Medanta Hospital indicating acute chronic liver failure and on the basis that the accused, a judicial officer, posed no risk of interference. The High Court examined the claim of suppression and found no evidence that the petitioner had concealed any material facts, and noted that the poisoning allegation was unsupported. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application and upheld the anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

  • Whether the anticipatory bail granted to Prabhat Kumar should be cancelled on the ground of suppression of material facts and false statements before the lower court

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • suppression of material facts
  • false statements
  • dowry harassment
  • poisoning allegation
  • judicial officer
  • bail cancellation

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27896 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2026 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR District-
                                                        Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Ajay Kumar Sharma Son of Late Ramshrigar Sharma Resident of Village-
                 Khabra PS -Sadar, Dist- Muzaffarpur

                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Prabhat Kumar Son of Anil Kumar Resident of Village- Mahmmadpur Kako,
                 Ps- Jehanabad, Dist- Jehanabad

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      None
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Uday Pratap Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   06-07-2026                  None appears on behalf of the petitioner even on

                   second call; however, the learned APP for the State is present.

                                2. This application has been filed for cancellation of

                   the anticipatory bail granted to Opposite Party No. 2 in

                   connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 66 of 2026 registered for

                   the offences punishable under Sections 80, 61(2) and 3(5) of the

                   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, vide order dated 13.03.2026

                   passed in A.B.P. No. 852/2026 by the Learned Principal District

                   & Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, on the ground that the said

                   order was obtained by suppression of material facts and by

                   making false statements before the learned Court.

                                3. The case of the informant, Dr. Ajay Kumar Sharma,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27896 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
                                            2/3




          is that he solemnized the marriage of his daughter, Muskan

          Kumari, with Prabhat Kumar on 07.12.2023 in accordance with

          Hindu rites and rituals. Soon after the marriage, the husband and

          his family members allegedly subjected her to cruelty and

          harassment for dowry, demanding money for the purchase of a

          flat at Patna. The deceased reportedly informed the informant

          that she was being administered unknown medicines without

          medical consultation and without being shown their wrappers. It

          is further alleged that an insurance policy was obtained in her

          name and that her husband was involved in an illicit relationship

          with another family member. The informant alleges that,

          pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, the accused persons

          administered slow poison to Muskan Kumari, causing severe

          liver damage. She was taken to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram,

          where she succumbed to her illness on 20.01.2026.

                       4. The allegation against the O.P. No. 2 is that he has

          obtained bail by suppressing the material facts and by making

          false statement before the Court below.

                       5. From the bare perusal of the impugned order, it

          appears that the death summary issued by Medanta Hospital,

          Gurugram shows that the deceased died of Acute Chronic Liver

          Failure, Jaundice, Coagulopathy and Hepatic Encephalopathy
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27896 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
                                                        3/3




                      Grade-III and the allegation of poisoning has been found to be

                      false.

                                   6. The       Principal      District    &   Sessions   Judge,

                      Muzaffarpur, has granted bail considering the certificate issued

                      by Medanta Hospital, Gurugram and also considering the fact

                      that O.P. No. 2, who is the husband, is a judicial officer and

                      there is no probability of him interfering with, fleeing from or

                      not cooperating in the investigation and trial.

                                   7. So far as the allegation of suppression of facts is

                      concerned, nothing has been mentioned in the petition to show

                      that the petitioner has suppressed any material facts.

                                   8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                      and finding no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order,

                      this application is hereby dismissed.



                                                     (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.