Patna High Court
Sunil SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioners, Sunil Sah and Sudish Sah, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 80 of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act (B.N.S.) concerning the alleged dowry‑related killing of a woman. They argued that they are innocent, have clean records, and that the informant is not an eye‑witness, asserting that the deceased died by suicide as indicated by a post‑mortem report showing asphyxia due to hanging. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations, though based on suspicion, warrant investigation. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. The order also warned that the bail could be cancelled if the petitioners fail to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 80 of the B.N.S. in the present circumstances.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioners constitute sufficient ground to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioners are likely to abscond or tamper with evidence, justifying denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 80
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 80
- Section 482(2)
- false implication
- dowry death
- suicide
- presumption against husband
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72571 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2025 Thana- BASANTPUR District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Sunil Sah Son of Late Ram Swaroop Sah Resident Of Village- Ujjaina, Ps
-Lakari Naviganj, Dist- Siwan
2. Sudish Sah son of Late Ram Swaroop Sah Resident Of Village- Ujjaina, Ps
-Lakari Naviganj, Dist- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uday Pratap Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 24-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 80 of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that his daughter was married in the Year 2019
and on 05.03.2025, he received an information that his daughter
has been killed, thus the informant reached at the place of
occurrence and saw the dead body of his daughter kept on a bed
and family members were absconding, thus alleges that 12
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72571 of 2025(3) dt.24-03-2026
2/4
accused persons killed his daughter as they were demanding
Rs.2 Lacs in dowry.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case being
elder brother of the husband of the deceased. It is next submitted
that informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and the
entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It is further submitted
that husband has not been made an accused, but then, informant
has implicated 12 accused persons in the case. It is next
submitted that had the petitioners been involved in the
occurrence of killing the deceased, in that event, efforts would
have been made to dispose off the dead body with a view to
conceal the evidence, but then, from perusal of the allegation as
alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant alleges
that when he reached at the place of occurrence, saw the dead
body of his daughter lying on a bed and the dead body was sent
for post mortem for ascertaining the cause of death and the post
mortem report records asphyxia due to hanging. It is further
submitted that this amply demonstrates that the victim
committed suicide. It is further submitted that no doubt, the
occurrence took place within six years of marriage, as such,
presumption in law is against the husband and his family
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72571 of 2025(3) dt.24-03-2026
3/4
members, but then, the husband has not been made an accused.
It is also submitted that even presuming what has been alleged
is true that victim died on account of asphyxia due to hanging,
in that event also, it was husband who created condition
conducive for the victim to take extreme steps of ending her life,
but then, husband is not made an accused. It is also submitted
that petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the
investigation to prove their innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on
anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with
Basantpur P. S. Case No.123 of 2025, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. However, it is made clear that in the event, if any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72571 of 2025(3) dt.24-03-2026
4/4
application is filed by the Investigating Officer before the
learned trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioners, despite
giving assurance to this Court, are not cooperating in the
investigation or are not presenting themselves as and when
required, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioners after recording reasons.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned
Police Station through the learned trial Court.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…