Patna High Court
Rabindra Kumar Sharma @ Ravi Kumar @ Rabindra Kuma SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner, finding the prosecution’s case sufficient and the statutory presumption applicable.
Summary
Rabindra Kumar Sharma was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita concerning the death of his wife, who allegedly committed suicide. He contended that he was falsely implicated, asserting that he and his wife had eloped, married, and had a child, and that the victim’s father fabricated the dowry‑demand and torture allegations. The State argued that the death occurred within seven years of marriage, invoking the statutory presumption against the husband in dowry‑related deaths, and that the husband had created conditions leading to the suicide. The court examined the submissions, noted the applicability of the presumption and the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence, and concluded that bail could not be granted. Accordingly, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of bail provisions under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in the present case?
- Whether the statutory presumption against the husband in dowry‑related deaths applies to the petitioner.
- Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 3(5), 80
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- suicide
- presumption against husband
- false implication
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58676 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2024 Thana- SIKTI District- Araria
======================================================
Rabindra Kumar Sharma @ Ravi Kumar @ Rabindra Kuma Sharma S/o-
Bhikhari Sharma Village- Pahara W.No-9, Ps- Sikty Dist- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ramesh Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Renuka Ratnakar (App)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 25-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sikty
P.S. Case No. 183 of 2024, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is in custody since 2-12-2024. It is next submitted that
petitioner, being husband, has been falsely implicated in the
instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that
petitioner and victim were in love and they had eloped and had
performed their marriage and out of the wedlock, a child was
born, but then the parents of the petitioner were not willing to
accept the marriage for the reason that the marriage was inter-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58676 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
2/4
caste, as such victim being fed up with the conduct of the
parents of the petitioner committed suicide which also gets
corroborated by the postmortem. It is also submitted that
informant, who is father of the victim, alleges that in the year
2020, petitioner had abducted his daughter and taken her to
Nepal and forcefully performed his marriage for which a
criminal case was instituted at Sikty PS, but subsequently the
petitioner along with victim came back with the child and as
such the informant along with his family members slowly
started visiting the house of the petitioner, further the accused
persons including the petitioner used to request the victim to
convince the informant for withdrawing the criminal case
instituted against them, on which the victim even persuaded the
informant to withdraw the criminal case which had given rise to
Sessions Trial No. 627 of 2023. It is next submitted that after
the informant in the aforesaid sessions trial gave evidence in
favour of the accused persons, the trauma started as the
petitioner along with his family members started demanding
dowry of Rs. 7 lakh and on account of non-fulfillment of the
same, it is alleged that the victim was tortured and subsequently
she was killed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58676 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
3/4
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that informant is not an eye-
witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that victim
committed suicide and the petitioner and his family members
never made any efforts to dispose of the dead body with a view
to conceal the evidence as they were aware that they were not
involved in the occurrence. It is also submitted that had the
petitioner and his family members been involved in the
occurrence, in that event, efforts would have been made to
dispose of the dead body with a view to conceal evidence, but
then the dead body was sent for postmortem for ascertaining the
cause of death. It is next submitted that the postmortem report
records that – death on account of asphyxia on account of
hanging, but then police in mechanical manner investigated and
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner.
5. The learned APP opposes the bail application and
submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that
the victim died within seven years of marriage and presumption
in law is against the husband and his family members, there is
also allegation of demand of dowry and torture. It is next
submitted that it was only after the accused persons including
the petitioner became successful through the victim convincing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58676 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
4/4
the informant of giving a favourable evidence in the aforesaid
sessions trial that the trauma started. It is also submitted that
even presuming what has been submitted by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner to be true but then an
important fact cannot be lost sight of, i.e., it is the duty of the
husband to ensure the well-being of his wife and even if the
wife committed suicide, in that event, it was husband who
created condition conducive for her to take the extreme steps of
ending her life, moreso she had a child even.
6. Considering the submission made by learned APP,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…