Patna High Court
Md. Laddan @ Md. LadanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners, subject to bond, surety and cooperation conditions, as the allegations were not substantiated and the informant was not an eye‑witness.
Summary
The petitioners, members of the family of a deceased woman, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a dowry‑related death case registered under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act. The informant alleged that the victim had warned him of a threat of murder by her in‑laws over a Rs.5 lakh dowry demand, and that she was later found strangulated. The petitioners contended that the informant was not an eye‑witness, the death was a suicide by hanging, and the allegations were vague and fabricated after six and a half years of marriage. The State and the informant opposed bail but could not refute the petitioners’ claim that the informant did not act on the alleged warning. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond, sureties and cooperation conditions, reserving the right to cancel bail if the investigation is obstructed.
Issues considered
- The petitioners' right to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case involving alleged dowry death.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute sufficient ground to deny bail, given the informant's lack of eye‑witness status and the medical opinion of suicide.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act are appropriate for the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 3(5), 482(2), 80
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- false implication
- eye‑witness
- suicide vs homicide
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39799 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2026 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Md. Laddan @ Md. Ladan S/o Late Asgar Ali Resident of Village - Mansha
Tola, Ward No.- 32, P.S. - Bettiah (Muffasil), District - West Champaran
2. Munni Khatoon @ Mumtaj Khatoon W/o Md. Laddan @ Md. Ladan
Resident of Village - Mansha Tola, Ward No.- 32, P.S. - Bettiah (Muffasil),
District - West Champaran
3. Gulafash Khatoon @ Laddo Dokhtar @ Lado D/o Md Laddan @ Md. Ladan
Resident of Village - Mansha Tola, Ward No.- 32, P.S. - Bettiah (Muffasil),
District - West Champaran
4. Md Altamas @ Altamas S/o Md Laddan @ Md. Ladan Resident of Village -
Mansha Tola, Ward No.- 32, P.S. - Bettiah (Muffasil), District - West
Champaran
5. Guriya Dokhtar @ Mahavish Gajal @ Gudiya D/o Md Laddan @ Md.
Ladan Resident of Village - Mansha Tola, Ward No.- 32, P.S. - Bettiah
(Muffasil), District - West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Murli Dhar, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Avinash Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-06-2026 1. Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and
3(5) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitoners no.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39799 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
2/5
2, 3 and 5 are women and the informant alleges that his
daughter was married to Md. Mashkur in Ocotober, 2019 and
after one year of marriage, the husband along with his family
members started torturing the victim for dowry demand of Rs.5
lakhs. However, by Panchayati the issue was settled temporarily.
Further, the victim gave birth to a son and a daughter thereafter
again dowry demand of Rs.5 lakhs started. It is next alleged that
on 04.03.2026 at 10:00 p.m. the victim informed the informant
that accused persons may kill her for non-fulfillment of dowry
demand. Thereafter, on 06.03.2026, the informant received an
information at 07:00 a.m. that victim was strangulated to death,
accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence and saw that her
in-laws were prepairing for her burial.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
deceased was married to Md. Mashkur in the year 2019 and the
instant FIR came to be instituted in the year 2026, i.e., after
more than six and half years of marriage. It is next submitted
that in between these six and half years, no case ever came to be
instituted either by the deceased or the informant alleging
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39799 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
3/5
torture on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand. It is
also submitted that informant is not an eye-witness to the
occurrence and the allegation of demand of dowry and torture is
general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that it
absolutely does not stand to reason that if the victim on
04.03.2026 had called the informant and informed that she
apprehends that accused persons would kill her for non-
fulfillment of dowry demand then why the informant did not
immediately rush to the matrimonial home of his daughter
which amply demonstrates that no such disclosure was made by
the victim to the informant as the informant alleges that on
06.03.2026, he received an information that the victim has been
strangulated to death which amply demonstrates that the
informant did not go to the matrimonial home of the victim on
04.03.2026 and 05.03.2026. It is next submitted that cause of
death has been opined to be asphyxia on account of hanging
which amply demonstrates that victim committed suicide. It is
also submitted that whenever any dispute arises in between the
husband and the wife and the occurrence of the nature as alleged
takes place, the entire family members are implicated in a
mechanical manner with general and omnibus allegation. It is
further submitted that had the petitioners been involved in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39799 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
4/5
occurrence then efforts would have been made to dispose of the
dead body with a view to conceal the evidence but then the dead
body was sent for postmortem for ascertaining the cause of
death and the Doctor opined asphyxia on account of hanging as
a cause of death. It is next submitted that sisters of the husband
of the deceased have also been made an accused who are of
marriageable age. It is also submitted that if the privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, the petitioners will
not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove
their innocence.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners but
then are not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that informant is
not an eyewitness to the occurrence and the cause of death is not
strangulation and if the victim had disclosed to the informant on
04.03.2026 that the accused persons may kill her then why he
did not rush immediately to the matrimonial home of the victim.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, let the
petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39799 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
5/5
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where
the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Bettiah
(Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 105 of 2026, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that if the Investigating
Officer of the case files an application before the learned Trial
Court bringing to its notice that the petitioners, despite giving
assurance to this Court, are not cooperating in the investigation,
the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail
bonds of the petitioners.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.