Patna High Court
Sogarath SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding insufficient evidence to justify continued detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Sogarath Sah, sought bail in a criminal case alleging his involvement in the murder of his daughter‑in‑law under IPC sections 302 and 201 and Arms Act section 27. The prosecution’s case rested mainly on the confession of a co‑accused, Vimlesh Kumar, who claimed the petitioner hired killers, but there was no eyewitness evidence and the confession was made in police custody, which lacks evidentiary value. The court noted that other co‑accused, including the husband of the deceased, had already been granted bail and that no specific allegation directly implicated the petitioner. Considering the lack of material evidence against him, the absence of a reverse burden of proof, and the petitioner’s long custody since December 2025, the court ordered bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties. The court also directed strict compliance with trial dates, warning that non‑appearance could lead to bail cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences (IPC 302, 201 and Arms Act 27).
- Whether the confession made by a co‑accused in police custody can be the sole basis for denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner bears a reverse burden of proof in the absence of direct evidence.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 201
- Arms Act 27
- confessional statement
- reverse burden of proof
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28066 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2023 Thana- HARLAKHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Sogarath Sah S/O Ramashish Sah Resident of Village- Raima, P.S.-
Saharghat, Dist.- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhavesh Kumar Sah
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the I.P.C. and 27
Arms Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along
with other co-accused persons, hired some criminals in order to get
her daughter-in-law killed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner happens to be the father-in-law of the deceased and it
would be evident from the First Information Report itself that dead
body of an unknown woman was recovered by the police at Indo-
Nepal border who was thrown after killing by gunshot.
Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire
case rests on suspicion and the confessional statements. It is
further submitted that there was some matrimonial discord
between the deceased and her husband while the petitioner was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28066 of 2026(3) dt.10-06-2026
2/3
living separately from them and was working outside for earning
his living.
5. It is gathered from the records that one Vimlesh
Kumar had confessed his guilt during the course of investigation
indicating the manner of the offence and also that he had been
hired for killing the deceased by the accused persons and it was
also disclosed in the confession that the husband of the deceased
along with his brother were also present during the occurrence.
However, save and except such confession in police custody which
has no evidentiary value, there is no other material appearing
against the petitioner to show his complicity. Since the occurrence
has not taken place within the confines of the house of the
petitioner, there is no reverse burden of proof on this petitioner. It
is further submitted that all the other family members including
the husband of the deceased has been granted bail by coordinating
Benches of this Court vide orders 25.10.2024, 19.08.2025,
09.10.2025 and 26.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc No. 58768 of 2024,
Cr. Misc no. 3612 of 2025, Cr. Misc no 58286 of 2025 and Cr.
Misc no.54235 of 2025 respectively. The petitioner is in custody
since 14.12.2025 and charge-sheet has already been submitted.
6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the
application for bail on the ground that the petitioner has absconded
for quite sometime on account of which the trial as against him has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28066 of 2026(3) dt.10-06-2026
3/3
not commenced.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
and also considering the fact that the petitioner happens to be the
father-in-law of the deceased and there is no specific allegation as
against him coupled with the fact that other co-accused persons
including the husband of the deceased have already been admitted
to bail, let the above named petitioner, be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Harlakhi P.S. Case No. 198/2023.
8. However, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear
on each and every date fixed in the trial and in the case of non-
appearance on single date without sufficient cause, would entail
cancellation of his bail bonds by the learned Trial Court.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.