Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Jagarnath MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court rejected the regular bail application, holding that the petitioner cannot be released until charges are framed.

Summary

The petitioner, Jagarnath Mukhiya, was arrested on 2 May 2025 in connection with an alleged dowry‑related death of his wife, who was said to have died on 1 May 2025. The informant alleged that after a 13‑year marriage and the birth of three children, the petitioner and others demanded a motorcycle, tortured the victim for non‑payment, and she subsequently died. The petitioner contended that the allegations are false, that the victim suffered from natural diseases, no post‑mortem was conducted, and no death certificate exists. The State argued that the death is undisputed and that the case is filed under Section 103 of the B.N.S., emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation. The informant indicated she would not oppose bail as the children disclosed the death was natural, but the prosecution maintained the seriousness of the charge. The court noted that charges have not yet been framed against the petitioner and, after hearing both sides, declined to grant bail. It directed that the petitioner may renew his bail prayer after the charges are framed.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner pending framing of charges under Section 103 of the B.N.S.
  • Whether the absence of a post‑mortem report and death certificate affects the bail decision
  • Whether the informant's lack of opposition to bail influences the court's discretion

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • dowry death
  • bail
  • Section 103
  • post‑mortem
  • death certificate
  • informant
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72077 of 2025

                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2025 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Jagarnath Mukhiya Son of Baldeo Mukhiya Resident of Village - Hari
                 Chapra, P.S.- Dumra, Dist- Sitamarhi.


                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar


                                                                              ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
                 For the Informant        :        Ms. Smiti Bharti, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                                   ORAL ORDER
3   26-02-2026                   1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf

                   of the informant, Ms. Smiti Bharti.

                                 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody

                   since 02.05.2025 and the informant alleges that marriage of her

                   daughter was solemnized with the petitioner about 14 years ago,

                   after one year of marriage, the accused persons including the

                   petitioner started demanding a motorcycle and on account of

                   non-fulfillment of the demand, the victim was tortured, but on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72077 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
                                            2/4




          account of intervention of well wishers, the issue was pacified,

          it is further alleged that out of the wedlock, three children were

          born, it is next alleged that on account of non-fulfillment of

          dowry demand, the victim was killed on 01.05.2025.

                       3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner, being husband, has been falsely implicated in the

          instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from

          perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest

          that informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence, though

          there is allegation of demand of dowry and torture, but then it is

          submitted that the marriage was 13 years old and in these 13

          years, no case ever came to be instituted either by the informant

          or the victim alleging demand of dowry and torture. It is next

          submitted that out of the wedlock, three children were born who

          presently are with the informant. It is also submitted that the

          victim was suffering from various diseases and she died a

          natural death, as such, the postmortem was not conducted, on

          which the learned APP for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhusnan

          Prasad, submits that no doubt the marriage was 13 years old,

          but then what is not disputed rather stands admitted is that the

          victim died. It is also submitted by the learned APP that if the

          victim died a natural death, in that event the same could have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72077 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
                                            3/4




          been certified by a certificate of the doctor, who was treating

          her, but then no such death certificate is on record. It is also

          submitted that that had postmortem of the dead body been

          carried out at least the cause of death could have been

          ascertained, but then that is also not the case. It is further

          submitted that the case has been instituted under Section 103 of

          the BNS.

                       4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          informant, Ms. Smiti Bharti, submits that she has instructions to

          make submission not to opposes the regular bail application of

          the petitioner for the reason that subsequent to institution of the

          instant FIR, the children disclosed to her that the victim died a

          natural death, on which the learned APP submits that it appears

          that the informant is not interested in pursuing the case.

                       5. On query of the Court from the learned counsel

          appearing on behalf of the petitioner whether charges have been

          framed against the petitioner or not, on which it is fairly

          submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioner that the charges, till date, have not been framed.

                       6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

          the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail,

          accordingly, the instant regular bail application stands
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72077 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
                                                        4/4




                      rejected.

                                   7. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would

                      be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.



                                                              (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.