Patna High Court
Jyoti Prakash @ Jyoti Prakash YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail is not to be granted at this stage of the proceedings.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered a bail application filed by Jyoti Prakash, who is accused of murdering his wife in a case alleged to involve dowry demands, punishable under IPC sections 80(2) and 3(5) and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner argued that his wife had committed suicide by hanging, citing a post‑mortem report and a UD case signed by the informant and his wife, and claimed that the investigation was complete. The State and the informant opposed bail, stressing the petitioner’s marital responsibility and the existence of private witness testimony that contradicted the suicide claim. Weighing the seriousness of the offence, the pending trial, and the evidence, the court refused to grant bail and ordered the trial court to expedite the trial within five months, after which the petitioner may renew his bail plea. The decision reflects the court’s cautious stance in homicide cases involving alleged dowry deaths.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a murder case alleged to be a dowry‑related death under IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act
- Whether the claim of suicide, supported by post‑mortem and UD case, is sufficient to justify bail
- Whether the pending trial and the nature of the evidence warrant denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. ¾
- Indian Penal Code — s. 3(5), 80(2)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- dowry death
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- suicide claim
- trial expeditious
- private witnesses
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38224 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-466 Year-2024 Thana- KUDRA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Jyoti Prakash @ Jyoti Prakash Yadav S/O Jitendra Yadav R/O Village-
Bahera, P.S- Kudra, Distt.- Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
9 10-02-2026 By an earlier order the Investigating Officer of this
case had to appear in the present case and he had appeared on
the date fixed which was yesterday, however, since the court
was not in session, his appearance was filed before the Registrar
General. Today, the necessity of the physical appearance of the
Investigating Officer is not required in view of the fact that the
answer to the question is found in the case diary itself.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 80(2), 3(5) of the Indian
Penal Code and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act.
4. Petitioner is said to have committed murder of the
daughter of the informant for non-fulfillment of demand of
dowry.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38224 of 2025(9) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
wife of the petitioner died on 08.12.2024 whereas the present
case came to be lodged 12.12.2024 after due thought and
deliberation. It is further submitted that the informant and his
family members as also the police were informed about the
death of the deceased and it was only in their presence that the
cremation was also done. It has also been submitted that the UD
case was lodged which bears the signature of both the informant
and his wife. As a matter of fact, the deceased had committed
suicide as she was suffering from some sort of depression. The
postmortem report also indicates asphyxia due to hanging with
no injury on the body of the deceased. Further, the petitioner is
in custody since 28.12.2024 and the trial is going on.
6. Learned APP for the State and the learned counsel
for the informant both have opposed the grant of bail on the
ground that he is the husband and he is primarily responsible for
the welfare of his wife. Learned counsel for the informant also
submits that the two private witnesses have already been
examined on behalf of the prosecution and there are only two
more private witnesses and the rest are official. He has seriously
disputed the UD case and has pointed out material to show that
their signatures were taken on the same case by alluring them to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38224 of 2025(9) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
do so.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering that fact that the petitioner
happens to be the husband of the deceased and further
considering that the trial is in progress, I am not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, his
prayer for bail is rejected in connection Kudra P.S. Case No. 466
of 2024.
8. However, the trial court is directed to expedite
the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of
five months, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to
renew his prayer for bail.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.