Patna High Court
Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Yadav, was arrested in connection with the death of his wife, who died within seven years of marriage. The informant, the victim's mother, alleged dowry demands, torture, and that the death was caused by throttling, invoking the presumption against the husband under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner argued he has a clean record, that the informant was not an eyewitness, and that the allegations are vague and unsubstantiated, seeking regular bail. The State contended that the statutory presumption in dowry death cases and the post‑mortem finding of asphyxia due to throttling justified denial of bail. After hearing both sides, the court found the evidence sufficient to keep the petitioner in custody and rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a dowry‑death case under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
- Whether the statutory presumption against the husband in dowry‑death cases warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the evidence presented, including the informant’s testimony and post‑mortem report, is sufficient to justify continued detention.
Legislation cited
- BNS, 2023 — s. 3(5), 80
Subjects
- dowry death
- bail
- presumption
- Section 80
- Section 3(5)
- asphyxia
- throttling
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69805 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2025 Thana- PANCHRUKHI District- Siwan
======================================================
Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Yadav S/o Ram Naressh Yadav R/o Village -
Laheji, P.S - Pachrukhi, M.H Nagar, District - Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunita Devi W/o Brij Kumar Yadav R/o - Bibi Ke Bangara, P.S - Barahariya,
District - Siwan
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 25-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the BNS,
2023.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent and is in custody since 13.05.2025 and the informant
alleges that her daughter was married to petitioner on
09.12.2023. It is further alleged that after marriage, the accused
persons including the petitioner started torturing her for dowry.
Further, the victim was also ousted from her matrimonial home
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69805 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
2/4
but then on 18.01.2025 she was taken back from her parental
home to her matrimonial home. Further, on 03.03.2025, the
informant received an information from an unknown person that
the victim is being assaulted, accordingly, the brother-in-law of
the informant went to the house of the accused persons and
made them understand and thereafter the situation normalized
but, on 05.03.2025, the informant came to know that her
daughter has been killed, accordingly, she reached the place of
occurrence and saw the dead body of her daughter lying with
mark of injury on her head, face and body.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner, being the husband, has been falsely implicated in the
instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that the
informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire
allegation hinges around suspicion. It is next submitted that as
far as demand of dowry and torture is alleged, the same is
general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that
informant herself alleges that on 03.03.2025 she came to know
that her daughter is being assaulted, accordingly, she sent her
brother-in-law who came to the house of the victim and pacified
the matter. It is further submitted that had the situation been
serious on 03.03.2025 in that event the brother-in-law of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69805 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
3/4
informant would have taken the victim back to her parental
home but then that was not done which amply demonstrates that
the dispute which had arisen was normal wear and tear of life.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for
regular bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that what is not in dispute,
rather stands admitted is that the deceased died within seven
years of marriage and the presumption in law is against the
husband of the deceased and his family members. It is further
submitted that no doubt, informant is not an eyewitness to the
occurrence but then her daughter died. It is next submitted that
the FIR itself discloses that on 03.03.2025 the informant was
informed by an unknown person that the victim is being
tortured/assaulted by the accused persons based on which she
sent her brother-in-law for pacifying the issue and it was only
after the brother-in-law reached the place of occurrence that the
issue was pacified. It is also submitted that it is not possible in
all cases to bring back the girl to her parental home. It is further
submitted that the dead body was sent for postmortem and the
postmortem records the cause of death as asphyxia on account
of throttling. It is, thus, submitted that the victim could not have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69805 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
4/4
throttled herself but then throttling was an act committed by the
accused persons and petitioner being the husband cannot evade
from the responsibility that his wife died in his house on
account of throttling.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in
connection with Pachrukhi (M.H. Nagar) P.S. Case No. 88 of
2025 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Siwan/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…