Patna High Court
Bipin KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner under Section 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioner, Bipin Kumar, was arrested in connection with the death of his wife, who was alleged to have been murdered but the petitioner claims she committed suicide due to infertility-related depression. The informant, who is not an eyewitness, alleged that the petitioner and his family tried to dispose of the body, but no prior complaints of dowry or torture were filed during the four-year marriage. The petitioner asserted a clean antecedent and argued that the FIR was based on false implication, with no evidence of dowry demand or direct involvement. The State opposed bail, but the court considered the lack of eyewitness testimony, the possibility of suicide, and the petitioner’s cooperation. Consequently, the court granted bail under Section 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, subject to a bond and sureties, and warned that bail could be cancelled if the petitioner delays the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita given the circumstances of the alleged death.
- Whether the informant’s allegations constitute sufficient ground to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 80(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 80(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- false implication
- suicide
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7320 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2025 Thana- EKANGARSARAI District- Nalanda
======================================================
Bipin Kumar S/o Sikandar Prasad Resident of Village- Upari Manpur
Dhangawan, P.O.- Dhkangawan, P.S.- Ekangarsarai, Distt.- Nalanda (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ran Vijay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 08-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 80(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that his maternal-niece was married to petitioner about
four years back, on 10-3-2025 the informant received an
information that his niece was brutally murdered, accordingly
the informant reached the place of occurrence and saw that dead
body was kept on an auto with an intention to dispose of the
same, but the auto was stopped by Gaurav and his friends; and
all the accused fled, further the dead body was sent for post-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7320 of 2026(3) dt.08-05-2026
2/4
mortem. It is next alleged that accused persons used to torture
the victim alleging that she cannot give birth to a child.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that the informant is not an
eyewitness to the occurrence. It is also submitted that the
marriage was four years old; and in between these four years, no
case ever came to be instituted either by the deceased or the
informant alleging torture. It is next submitted that the victim
was being treated by doctors for curing her infertility, but the
same was not cured on account of which the victim started
remaining depressed. It is further submitted that since the victim
was not able to bear a child, as such she committed suicide, as
has been pleaded at Para-12 of the bail application. It is next
submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that the informant does not allege
demand of dowry nor the informant discloses who informed him
about the death of the victim. It is further submitted that after
the victim committed suicide, an auto was called for taking the
body to a hospital for post-mortem, but by then the informant
along with others came and the instant FIR came to be instituted
with an allegation that the petitioner and his family members
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7320 of 2026(3) dt.08-05-2026
3/4
were trying to dispose of the dead body. It is also submitted that
victim was being treated for her infertility as would manifest
from Annexures-2 and 3 to the bail application. It is also
submitted that there are other prescriptions relating to the
treatment. It is next submitted that no doubt the informant died
within seven years of marriage, but then all deaths are not
dowry death and it is not that in all cases husband and his family
members are involved in killing the deceased. It is further
submitted that the marriage is four years old and in these four
years the deceased could not conceive. It is reiterated and
submitted that had petitioner or his family members been
torturing the deceased for not conceiving a child in that event
some dispute might have arisen, but then no case or complaint
ever came to be instituted. It is next submitted that petitioner is
in custody since since 24-6-2025. It is also submitted that if
privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the
petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to
prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above named be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7320 of 2026(3) dt.08-05-2026
4/4
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) 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 Ekangarsarai P.S.
Case No. 55 of 2025.
7. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial
court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner after his release
is trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of
charge is delaying the trial in any manner, in both the conditions
the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds
of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…