Patna High Court

Md. RajuversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 23 February 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

Md Raju, the husband of the deceased, applied for bail in a case where the informant alleges he killed his daughter over a dowry demand. The FIR charges him under sections 103, 61 and 3(5) of the BNS. The petitioner contends that no dowry was demanded, that the death was a suicide by hanging as per the medical report, and that he has no prior criminal record. The State and the informant opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner, as the husband, is primarily responsible for his wife's welfare. The trial report indicated that charges were framed, only eight witnesses are to be examined, and the trial could be concluded within eight months. Considering these circumstances, the court declined to grant bail, but permitted a fresh application after eight months if the trial remains pending.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused under sections 103, 61 and 3(5) of the BNS in the alleged dowry‑death case
Whether the petitioner poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
Whether the anticipated duration of the trial justifies denial of bail

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 103, 3(5), 61

Subjects

bail
dowry death
suicide
criminal procedure
trial duration
section 103 BNS
section 61 BNS
section 3(5) BNS

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65331 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2025 Thana- AAJAM NAGAR District- Katihar
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Raju S/O Giasuddin @ Gyasuddin R/O Village- Dhamaikol, P.S. -
                 Azamnagar, Dist.- Katihar.
                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                             Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar
                                                              ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :       Md Qumrul Hoda, Adv.
                 For the State           :       Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
                 For the Informant       :       Mr. N. Ahmed, Adv.
                                                 Mr. Thakur Brijesh Singh, Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   23-02-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP

                   for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

                                   2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the

                   petitioner in connection with Azamnagar P.S. Case no.43 of

                   2025 registered under sections 103, 61 and 3(5) of BNS.

                                 3. Allegation in the F.I.R is that accused persons killed

                   the informant’s daughter due to non-fulfillment of demand of

                   dowry.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has been made an accused after 12 years of marriage

                   only on account of the fact that he happens to be the husband of

                   the deceased. The petitioner also denied to have indulged in any

                   demand of dowry and torture upon the deceased. Further, he

                   submits that the deceased committed suicide as it is apparent

                   from the medical report that the cause of death is asphyxia due

                   to hanging. Further, the petitioner is in custody since 22.02.2025
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65331 of 2025() dt.23-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      with no criminal antecedent.

                                   5. The application for bail is opposed by learned

                      A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel for the informant on

                      the ground that the petitioner, who is the husband of the

                      deceased is primarily responsible for the welfare of his wife.

                                   6. A report had been called for with respect to stage of

                      the trial, which indicates that charges have been framed on

                      28.11.2025 and only 8 charge-sheet witnesses are there and trial

                      is proposed to be concluded within a period of 8 months upon

                      cooperation extended by both the parties. It has been informed

                      that one witness has already been examined and the next date

                      for examination is 26.02.2026.

                                   7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and

                      circumstances of the case and also considering the report of the

                      learned trial court with regard to conclusion of the trial within a

                      period of 8 months, I am not inclined to grant bail to the

                      petitioner and the application is rejected.

                                   8. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to

                      renew his prayer for bail after 8 months, if the trial is not

                      concluded.


                                                (Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…