Patna High Court

Mukund JhaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 10 February 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

Bail was denied as the presumption of guilt under Section 113B of the Evidence Act warranted the petitioner’s continued custody.

Summary

The petitioner, Mukund Jha, was arrested in connection with a dowry‑related murder case (PS Bahera Case No.78 of 2025) and sought bail under Sections 80, 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, as the husband of the deceased, participated in torturing and killing his wife after a dowry demand was not met, with the post‑mortem confirming throat slitting. The petitioner contended that he merely informed the family of the death, had no prior knowledge of any dowry demand, and possessed no criminal antecedents. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s marital relationship to the victim, corroborative witness statements, and medical evidence. The Court, applying Section 113B of the Evidence Act, held that the circumstances created a presumption of guilt and therefore denied bail, directing the trial to proceed after framing of charges.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to the accused under Sections 80, 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita in a dowry‑death case.
Whether the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act applies, justifying denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 113B

Subjects

bail
dowry death
murder
Section 113B
Evidence Act
Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70796 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2025 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga
                 ======================================================
                 Mukund Jha S/O Gopal Ji Jha Resident of Amethi, P.S- Bahera, District-
                 Darbhanga
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Anjani Parashar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   10-02-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                   2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for

                   the offence punishable under Sections 80, 3(5) and 61(2) of the

                   Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita.

                                   3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along

                   with others are said to have demanded dowry from the

                   informant’s daughter and due to non-fulfillment of the same, they

                   tortured and killed her.

                                   4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   it would be evident from the First Information Report that it was

                   the petitioner himself who had informed the informant on phone

                   that his daughter has died and never made any attempt to dispose

                   of the dead body. It has also been submitted that there had been

                   no previous complaint of any dowry demand prior to the incident

                   as a matter of fact, petitioner was in Darbhanga for a marriage

                   ceremony and he was totally unaware of the incident. Further, the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70796 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      petitioner is in custody since 21.02.2025 with no criminal

                      antecedent.

                                     5. Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of

                      bail on the ground that the petitioner is husband of the deceased

                      whose throat has been silt and the witnesses in paragraph nos.5, 6

                      and 7 of the case diary, have supported the case along with

                      postmortem report.

                                     6.    Taking      into    consideration   the   facts   and

                      circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the

                      deceased has been killed by slitting her throat which has been

                      supported by the medical evidence and the dead body was at the

                      house of the petitioner, as such, Section 113B of the Evidence Act

                      comes into play and on such grounds, this Court is not inclined to

                      grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner, who is husband of the

                      deceased. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is

                      hereby rejected in connection with Bahera P.S. Case No.78 of

                      2025.

                                     7. However, the learned Court concerned is directed

                      to proceed with the trial after framing of charge, in case, charges

                      have not been framed, expeditiously.



                                                (Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…