Patna High Court
RAVI KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to a bond and statutory conditions, while directing verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
Ravi Kumar was arrested in connection with a dowry‑death case (Sections 80(2), 123, 238 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita) after the death of the informant's daughter, alleged to have resulted from a demand for Rs.5 lakh and a gold chain. The petitioner contended that his wife, described as mentally unstable, committed suicide and he merely admitted her to a hospital where she later died, citing medical receipts and the absence of a post‑mortem as evidence. He argued that the FIR was lodged five days after the incident, only two prosecution witnesses had been examined in over a year of custody, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, thus justifying bail. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the dowry‑death allegation and the petitioner’s marital relationship to the victim. The High Court, noting the delay in filing the FIR, the limited progress of the trial, and the petitioner’s clean antecedent, ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. and Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and directed the trial court to verify his criminal antecedent.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail to an accused in a dowry‑death case given the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the alleged offence?
- Does the limited progress of the trial and the examination of only two prosecution witnesses justify bail?
- Are the conditions imposed under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. and Section 480(3) B.N.S.S. sufficient to safeguard the trial process?
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 480(3)
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 123, 238, 3(5), 80(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 437(3)
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- delay in FIR
- criminal antecedent
- trial delay
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
- Section 480(3) B.N.S.S.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48762 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-224 Year-2024 Thana- SARMERA District- Nalanda
======================================================
RAVI KUMAR S/o- Chandeshwar Pandit Village- Kotra Ps- Sarmera
Dist- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dr Pankaj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The accused/petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Sarmera P.S. Case No. 224 of 2024 (G.R. No.
6591/2024) registered for the offences under Sections
80(2), 123, 238, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023
(in short, the ‘B.N.S.’).
3. The accused/petitioner is named in the First
Information Report and is in custody since 26.10.2024.
4. Allegation against the petitioner is to cause
death of daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry as raised for a cash of Rs. Five Lakhs and
one golden chain alongwith other family members/co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48762 of 2025(4) dt.09-01-2026
2/5
accused.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that the wife of petitioner was a
short tampered lady and due to certain family quarrel she
committed suicide by consuming poison.
6. It is submitted that on seeing the deteriorating
condition of the wife, petitioner admitted her in Universal
Emergency Hospital & Trauma Centre, Kumhrar, Patna
where she was treated but could not survived. In support of
his submission, learned counsel relied upon Annexure P/3
series, which is the admission and medical receipt of
Universal Hospital and Trauma Centre, Patna. It is further
submitted that the dead body was received by maternal
uncle of the deceased and her husband, where the maternal
uncle of the deceased categorically expressed his desire in
writing that he is not desirous to conduct post-mortem upon
the deceased.
7. Arguing further, it is pointed out that all family
members were present at the time of cremation and
therefore nothing was concealed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48762 of 2025(4) dt.09-01-2026
3/5
8. It is further submitted that after cremation as
an afterthought, when primary discussion qua partition of
property related with share of childrens of deceased was not
accepted by the father/family of petitioner, with a delay of
five days for the alleged occurrence which took place on
03.10.2024, the present FIR was lodged on 08.10.2024,
without any just explanation.
9. Arguing further, it is further submitted that
despite of custody of about one year and three months only
two prosecution witnesses were examined and, therefore,
the progress of trial in itself sufficient to suggest that same
could not conclude in near future.
10. While concluding argument, it is submitted
that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and, moreover,
investigation of this case is already concluded, for which
charge-sheet has been submitted and as such, there is no
chance of tampering with the evidence.
11. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing
the prayer for bail of the petitioner, submitted that
petitioner is the husband of the daughter of the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48762 of 2025(4) dt.09-01-2026
4/5
facing specific allegation.
12. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of the fact as FIR in issue was lodged with a
delay of five days, coupled with the fact that despite of
custody of about one year and three months, only two
prosecution witnesses were examined suggesting prima
facie that trial of this case is not likely to conclude in near
future, accordingly, above-named petitioner is directed to
be released on bail, furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nalanda, Biharsharif/concerned court, in
connection with Sarmera P.S. Case No. 224 of 2024,
subject to the condition as laid down under Section 437(3)
Cr.P.C/Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
13. The learned trial court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is
found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48762 of 2025(4) dt.09-01-2026
5/5
of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of
bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not
be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.