Patna High Court
Akhilesh Singh @ Dabbu Singh @ Akhilesh Kumar @ AkhileshversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the circumstances did not warrant its grant.
Summary
The petitioners, Akhilesh Singh and others, were named accused in a dowry death case (IPC Sections 304B, 201/34 and Dowry Prohibition Act Section 3) arising from the murder of the informant's daughter in 2018. They applied for anticipatory bail, claiming they were in Varanasi at the time of the alleged offence, supported by call records, and argued that the investigation had not conclusively linked them to the crime. The State opposed the bail, noting that the FIR was lodged in 2018, a Section 82 criminal proceeding was issued in 2024, and the post‑mortem indicated death by throttling, indicating seriousness of the charges. The Court examined the material, considered the precedent set in Lavesh v. State (2012) 8 SCC 730, and held that the pending investigation and the nature of the offences precluded the grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a dowry death case where the FIR is several years old and a Section 82 proceeding is pending.
- Whether the petitioner’s alibi and lack of direct evidence are sufficient to merit anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- IPC 304B
- Section 82 CrPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- pre‑arrest bail
- investigation delay
- murder
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49348 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-427 Year-2018 Thana- DUMRAO District- Buxar
======================================================
Akhilesh Singh @ Dabbu Singh @ Akhilesh Kumar @ Akhilesh S/o Rana
Pratap Singh @ Rana Singh P/A- Shri 9/3 B, Ramjanki Dham Colony Gilat
Bazar, Shivpuri, Varanasi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Shiv Nandan Singh, Sr. Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 21-01-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Dumraon P.S. Case No. 427 of 2018, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 201/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The marriage of the daughter of the informant was
solemnized in the year 2015 and they also blessed with a baby
child. Despite the aforesaid fact, the deceased was subjected to
demand of dowry and on account of non fulfillment of the same,
she was tortured in various ways. It is also alleged that earlier
out of rupees four lakhs, which was being demanded by the
petitioner, Rs. 70,000/- has been transferred through RTGS in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49348 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
the account of the petitioner and the cash amount to the tune of
Rs. 1,30,000/- has been given to the family members.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, on 31.10.2018, at about 10’o
clock, the petitioner had called upon the informant’s daughter in
the market and from where she was found traceless. Later on,
her dead body was recovered nearby a bush, which led to
institution of the present case.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
on the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner was present in
Varanasi and this fact has also been corroborated by the call
details report. On the alleged date of occurrence, there had no
communication from the mobile phone of the petitioner. In fact,
the entire case is based upon suspicion because of not having
good relationship between the husband and wife. The police
during the course of investigation has found the case true only
under Section 302/34 of the IPC against the unknown
miscreants and recommended for submitting final report in
favour of the petitioner. However, the Superintendent of Police
directed for further investigation in the matter. Only on account
of the aforesaid reason, since the petitioner had been waiting for
the final outcome of the investigation, thus delay has occurred
in approaching this Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49348 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
as well as the learned Senior Advocate for the informant
opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submitted that
despite that fact the FIR has been registered long back in the
year 2018, by making the petitioner as named accused with
specific accusation, he has been evading his arrest and on
11.04.2024, the process under Section 82 has also been issued
and thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court. The
anticipatory bail of the petitioner, on account of the aforesaid
reason, is not maintainable in terms with the order of the Apex
Court in the case of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported
in (2012) 8 SCC 730. It is further contended that in course of
investigation, the Superintendent of Police has supervise the
matter and found the complicity of the petitioner and directed
for attachment of the property of the petitioner on 28.06.2024
itself. The petitioner has approached this Court after seven
years. The body of the deceased was found in the bush and
thereafter sent for autopsy. Further, the post-mortem report
clearly suggest that she was done to death by throttling.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the ample materials available on record, beside the fact that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49348 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
FIR was instituted long back in the year 2018 and the process
under Section 82 has already been issued on 11.04.2024, before
filing of the present application; this Court is not acceded to the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands
rejected.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U T
Checking your session…