Patna High Court
Brijesh Manjhi @ Brijesh Kumar ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The petition for regular bail was denied.
Summary
Brijesh Manjhi was arrested in connection with a dowry‑related death case (PS Case No. 342 of 2025) and charged under Sections 80(2), 238(b) and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS). The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting that his wife died of a heart attack and that the family performed the cremation without any foul play, and sought regular bail. The State and the informant opposed bail, highlighting the absence of a post‑mortem, the cremation of the body before investigation, and the seriousness of the alleged dowry‑death offence. The court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant bail, noting the need for a thorough investigation and the risk of tampering with evidence. The court allowed the petitioner to re‑apply for bail after six months if the trial remained pending and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to the accused in a dowry‑death case under Sections 80(2), 238(b) and 3(5) of the BNS.
- Whether the lack of a post‑mortem and the cremation of the body before investigation justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 238(b), 3(5), 80(2)
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- cruelty
- postmortem
- criminal procedure
- BNS
- Section 80(2)
- Section 238(b)
- Section 3(5)
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70668 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-342 Year-2025 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran
======================================================
Brijesh Manjhi @ Brijesh Kumar Manjhi S/o- Manik Chand Manjhi @ Manik
Chand R/v- Jagdishpur Ps- Marhaura Dist- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harsh Anuj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
For the informant : Mr. Suresh Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with Marhaura P.S. Case No. 342 of 2025 instituted
for the offence under Sections 80(2), 238(b) and 3(5) of BNS.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner
was married to one Nilu Devi (deceased). It is further alleged
that she was subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment
of dowry demand of a motorcycle by her in-laws. It is also
alleged on 22.05.2025 the deceased has informed the informant
that she was being assaulted by her in-laws. On 23.05.2025, the
villagers told the informant that the deceased has died. After
this, the informant went to the matrimonial house of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70668 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
deceased but he did not find the deceased at the house. On being
searched, he came to know that the dead body has been
cremated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has further
submitted that the deceased has died of heart attack and that the
family members of the deceased have participated in the
cremation. Death is not otherwise, as such, this is not a case
under Section 80(2) of BNS. A statement has been made in para-
3 of this petition that the petitioner has got no criminal
antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since
13.06.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned
counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of regular
bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that this
fact has not come during investigation that the informant along
with his family members has participated in the cremation of the
deceased and from perusal of the FIR also, it is clear that there
is no delay in filing of the FIR. It cannot be said that it is a well-
planned FIR. As the deceased has died in the matrimonial house,
it was the duty of the in-laws, especially the husband to inform
the informant and to get the postmortem conducted before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70668 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
cremation which has not been done in this case.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the facts and circumstances of this case as
stated above, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands
rejected.
7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
8. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
and conclude the same as soon as possible.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…