Patna High Court
Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court declined to grant bail, disposing the application but allowing the petitioner to renew the bail prayer after charges are framed.
Summary
Mukesh Kumar petitioned for bail in a case registered under Sections 304B and 201 of the IPC, alleging that the death of his wife was accidental and that the dowry‑death allegations in the FIR were false. The prosecution contended that the petitioner, as the husband, was primarily responsible for the death, which the post‑mortem attributed to traumatic brain injury caused by blunt force. The petitioner highlighted that the inquest report described the death as accidental, that the railway department had informed the parents, and that co‑accused persons had already been granted bail while charges had not yet been framed. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the dowry‑death charge and the petitioner’s marital relationship to the deceased. The court, considering the allegations and the petitioner’s status as husband, declined to grant bail at this stage, disposing the application but permitting a fresh bail prayer after charges are framed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner pending trial for offences under Sections 304B and 201 IPC.
- Whether the dowry‑death allegation in the FIR is substantiated.
- Whether the absence of framed charges warrants the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s relationship as husband of the deceased precludes bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- IPC 304B
- IPC 201
- criminal procedure
- pre‑trial detention
- husband-wife relationship
- post‑mortem
- inquest
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52461 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2023 Thana- WARISNAGAR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Sah S/o Batahu Sah R/o Village- Ratanpur, P.S.-
Warisnagar, District- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammed Arif, A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
9 16-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 304 (B) and 201 of the I.P.C.
3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner and others killed
the informant’s daughter and thrown her dead body on railway track
for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegations of demand of dowry and torture made in the First
Information Report are completely false and baseless. As a matter of
fact, the inquest report of the deceased itself clearly reveals that the
deceased was found at the railway track and the reason has also been
said to be on account of an accidental death. It has further been
submitted that the very fact that after inquest, the Railway
department had informed the parents of the deceased substantiates
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52461 of 2025(9) dt.16-02-2026
2/2
the arguments of the petitioner that the deceased was infact staying
with her parents and not with her husband or else the husband who is
the petitioner would have been informed of the incident. It has also
been submitted that the other co-accused persons have also been
granted bail and this submission has also weighed in the orders of the
Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. Further, the petitioner is in
custody since 28.08.2024 and supplementary affidavit has been filed
to state that till date even charges have not been framed.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the bail petition on
the ground that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and he is
primarily responsible for the welfare of his wife and further, post
mortem report of the deceased indicates death on account of
traumatic brain injury caused by hard and blunt force impact.
6. Taking the rival contention into consideration, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, at this stage, as he
happens to be the husband of the deceased and there are allegations
made against him.
7. However, the present application is disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of
charges.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…