Patna High Court

Bachhru Lathour @ Bachharu LathourversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 20 February 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Bachhru Lathour, applied for bail in a murder case (PS Itarhi Case No. 277 of 2024) where he is accused under Sections 103(1), 123 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. for allegedly killing the sister of an informant, who was also his wife of nine years. The petitioner claimed false implication, noting lack of motive, a post‑mortem that showed no cause of death, and that the viscera report found no poison. The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the FIR allegations. The court observed that six of nine witnesses had been examined, with some not supporting the prosecution, but noted that the trial had already reached an advanced stage. Consequently, the court refused bail, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within four months and allowing the petitioner to renew his bail plea thereafter.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a murder case at an advanced stage of trial
Whether the absence of a clear motive and forensic evidence justifies bail

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 123, 3(5)

Subjects

bail
murder
criminal procedure
advanced trial stage
B.N.S.
post‑mortem report
witness examination

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62137 of 2025
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-277 Year-2024 Thana- ITARHI District- Buxar
                 ======================================================
                 Bachhru Lathour @ Bachharu Lathour S/o Rangila Lathour R/o Village-
                 Mathiya Dera, P.S.- Koransarai, Dist.- Buxar
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   20-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public

                   Prosecutor for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 123, 3(5) of the

                   B.N.S.

                                 3. Petitioner is said to have committed the murder of

                   the sister of the informant.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he

                   has been falsely implicated in this case on account of the fact

                   that he is the husband of the deceased. The marriage of the

                   petitioner had taken place with the deceased more than 9 years

                   back and no motive has been alleged as to why the deceased

                   was done to death. Moreover, the postmortem report does not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62137 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026
                                            2/3




          indicate any cause of death and her Viscera was preserved for

          examination. The Viscera report has also now been received

          which shows that no metallic or volatile poison could be

          detected in the same. The petitioner is in custody since

          31.12.2024 and undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

                       5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for

          the informant have opposed the application for bail on the

          ground of the allegations mentioned in the FIR.

                       6. Report with regard to the stage of the case dated

          18.11.2025 indicated that three out of nine witnesses were

          examined. However, counsel for the petitioner has fairly

          submitted that as of now six out of nine witnesses have already

          been examined and some of them have not supported the case of

          the prosecution.

                           7. Taking into consideration the fact that the case

          has reached an advanced stage of trial, I am not inclined to

          enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, his

          prayer for bail is rejected in connection Itarhi P.S. Case No. 277

          of 2024.

                           8. However, learned court below is directed to

          expedite the trial even by way of holding day to day

          proceedings in order to conclude the trial preferably within a
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62137 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026
                                                         3/3




                       period of four months, failing which the petitioner shall be at

                       liberty to renew his prayer for bail.



                                                 (Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…