Patna High Court
Sumit Kumar @ Deepak KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The bail application was denied.
Summary
The petitioner, Sumit Kumar, was charged under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the death of his wife, which occurred within seven years of marriage. He applied for bail, claiming he was falsely implicated, that the death was not a dowry death, and that the victim had strangulated herself after assaulting his children, presenting an alibi that he was at a doctor's clinic with his children at the time. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the post‑mortem report recorded asphyxia due to strangulation and that self‑strangulation was implausible, and noted the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents and that trial had already commenced. The court examined the lack of detailed alibi evidence and the seriousness of the offences, particularly the dowry‑death provision. Concluding that the circumstances did not warrant release, the court rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged dowry death under IPC Section 304B and common intention under Section 34.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of self‑strangulation by the deceased and his alibi are sufficient to justify bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent criminal cases and the commencement of trial affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 34
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- IPC 304B
- IPC 34
- criminal procedure
- self‑strangulation
- alibi
- antecedent cases
- trial commencement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59589 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2024 Thana- MANSURCHAK District- Begusarai
======================================================
Sumit Kumar @ Deepak Kumar S/o Ganga Bishun Chaurasia R/o Village -
Satha, Post - Satha, Ward No. 9, P.S - Mansoorchak, District - Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner being husband has been falsely
implicated by the informant. It is next submitted that no doubt
the death took place within seven years of marriage but then all
deaths are not dowry deaths. It is also submitted that petitioner
had informed the police about the occurrence and the police
came but the petitioner was not arrested. It is further submitted
that the dead body was sent for post mortem and the post
mortem report records asphyxia on account of strangulation to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59589 of 2025(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
be the cause of death but then it is submitted that the victim
strangulated herself leading to death. Petitioner was not
involved in the occurrence for the reason that he had gone with
his children to a doctor for getting them treated as they were
assaulted by the deceased prior to committing suicide. It is
further submitted that the dead body was cremated in presence
of family members of the deceased and thereafter Shradhkarm
was performed.
4. The learned APP opposes the bail application and
submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that
the deceased died within seven years of marriage and the post
mortem report records the cause of death as asphyxia on account
of strangulation. It is further submitted that it does not appear
probable that the victim would have strangulated herself. It is
next submitted that a plea of alibi is being taken that petitioner
at the time of occurrence had gone to a doctor for getting his
sons treated who were assaulted by the deceased. It is also
submitted that had that been a case, at least, in the regular bail
application, the name of the doctor and the time would have
been pleaded, i.e., to which doctor, the petitioner had gone along
with his children for getting them treated.
5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59589 of 2025(2) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
of the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since
13.02.2024 and charges have been framed and trial has
commenced on which the learned APP submits that petitioner
also has antecedents of two cases and since trial has
commenced, as such, it is not a fit case for grant of bail.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is
hereby rejected in connection with Sessions Trial No.585 of
2024, arising out of Mansoorchak P.S. Case No.06 of 2024,
pending in the court of learned District & Additional Sessions
Judge-XI, Begusarai.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.