Patna High Court
Abhimanyu Kumar Singh @ Abhimanyu SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Abhimanyu Kumar Singh, applied for bail in a case registered under Section 80(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act concerning the death of his wife, Sonali Kumari. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, together with the in‑laws, assaulted the deceased for not providing a dowry bike, leading to her death. The defence contended that the post‑mortem report showed no antemortem injuries, suggesting death due to poisoning, and highlighted the petitioner’s clean criminal record. Counsel for the informant opposed bail, asserting the petitioner’s involvement in the assault. After evaluating the forensic ambiguity and the petitioner’s custody since August 2025, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, directing compliance by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑VII, Saran.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite allegations of dowry‑related homicide under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the post‑mortem findings indicating no antemortem injuries justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 80(1)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- criminal procedure
- postmortem
- presumption of guilt
- Section 80(1) B.N.S.
- Dowry Prohibition Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5020 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-234 Year-2025 Thana- MASHRAK District- Saran
======================================================
Abhimanyu Kumar Singh @ Abhimanyu Singh Son of Hridyashankar singh
R/o Village - Bansohi, P.S. - Mashrakh, Dist. - Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Mashrakh P.S. Case No. 234 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 80(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 and
Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the
daughter of the informant, namely, Sonali Kumari (deceased),
was married to the petitioner one year ago. It is further alleged
that the in-laws of the deceased started subjecting her to cruelty
on account of the non-fulfillment of the dowry demand of a
bike. It is further alleged that the deceased has disclosed that she
was being assaulted. On 26.05.2025, the deceased informed her
parents that she was being assaulted. When the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5020 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
reached there with his neighbors, she found that his daughter
was killed and she was admitted to a private hospital to show
bonafides.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. He also submits that in this case, a postmortem report of
the deceased was done and from perusal of the postmortem
report, it will transpire that the doctor conducting autopsy of the
deceased has not found any antemortem injury and the cause of
death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved for
chemical analysis. He also submits that the deceased had
consumed poison, and after that, she was rushed to the hospital,
and from there, she was referred to a higher center. He also
submits that while she was being rushed to the higher center, she
died. He further submits that Annexure-P/3 is the prescription of
B.K. Nursing Home & Emergency Centre and the postmortem
report goes to show that the deceased has no antemortem injury
or was not being assaulted. Moreover, a statement has been
made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal
antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since
11.08.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5020 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
5. The application for bail is vehemently opposed by
learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the
State. Learned counsel for the informant stated that the deceased
was being assaulted by the in-laws and mainly by this petitioner
and for showing the bonafides they have brought to the B.K.
Nursing Home & Emergency Centre.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Saran at Chapra in
connection with Mashrakh P.S. Case No. 234 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…