Patna High Court
Raghubir Sah @ Raghuvir SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to a bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Raghubir Sah, was charged under sections 115(2), 126(2), 103(1), 85 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 for the alleged murder of his wife, who was also the informant’s daughter, allegedly over a dowry dispute. The petitioner contended that he was not present at the scene, that the FIR was based merely on suspicion, that no witnesses had been examined, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon; he also had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, arguing that as the husband of the deceased he bore primary responsibility for her welfare. The Court examined the factual matrix, noted the lack of forensic evidence on record, the absence of any prior complaint of cruelty, and the improbability of a speedy trial, and consequently ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with attendance conditions. The bail order was conditioned on the petitioner’s presence in the trial court on each date and allowed cancellation if he absented himself without sufficient cause.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail to an accused in a murder case where the allegation is based on suspicion and the accused was not present at the scene?
- Whether the absence of forensic (FSL) report and unexamined witnesses precludes the continuation of custody?
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged dowry‑related murder outweighs the right to bail under the circumstances?
Legislation cited
- BNS, 2023 — s. 103(1), 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 85
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- dowry death
- suspicion
- trial delay
- BNS 2023
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75399 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2025 Thana- PIYAR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Raghubir Sah @ Raghuvir Sah S/o Bhagyanarayan Sah Resident of Village-
Govindpur Chapra, P.S.- Piyar, Distt.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumit Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the
petitioner in connection with Piyar P.S. Case no.72 of 2025
registered under sections 115(2), 126(2), 103(1), 85 and 3(5) of
BNS, 2023.
3. Allegation in the F.I.R is that petitioner along with
his family members killed the informant’s daughter on non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the deceased happens to be the wife of the petitioner and the
marriage dates back to the year 2015 i.e. 10 years prior to the
date of occurrence, although it has been stated in the F.I.R that
she was being ill treated by the petitioner and other accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75399 of 2025(4) dt.18-02-2026
2/4
persons, however, there has been no earlier complaint of any
cruelty being meted out to her. Further, it is an admitted fact, as
per F.I.R itself, that the petitioner was at Allahabad where he
had taken the deceased along with him but had reached her back
to house of the informant and the informant also accepts that for
the past year, the deceased had been at his house and it was only
on 25.04.2025 that she went to her matrimonial home upon
being called by her mother-in-law. Upon information being
received on 21.05.2025 that the informant’s daughter had died
in the matrimonial home, he reached there where two other
accused persons, namely, Ajay Kumar and Lalit Thakur were
found in abusive condition and allegedly extended threats,
claiming responsibility for the murder of the deceased. F.I.R
further discloses that informant only has belief and suspicion
that the said act has been done at the instance of the petitioner.
Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the postmortem
report showing the finding in the external examination of that of
an abrasion on the right side of the neck with some
haemorrhagic spots near the eyes. The opinion regarding cause
of death was kept preserved till the chemical analysis of viscera
but as a matter of fact not only charge-sheet was submitted but
even charges have been framed without the FSL report being
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75399 of 2025(4) dt.18-02-2026
3/4
there on record. The petitioner is in custody since 22.05.2025
and charges have been framed in the case but no witness has
been examined till now and hence, there is no likelihood to
conclude the trial in the near future. The petitioner has no
criminal antecedent and undertakes to cooperate in the
case/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
A.P.P. for the State on the ground that petitioner is the husband
of the deceased and he is primarily responsible for the welfare
of his wife.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that
petitioner was not even present at the place of occurrence, as
admitted by the prosecution case itself and the allegation being
based on suspicion and belief, coupled with the fact that charges
have already been framed with no likelihood of trial being
concluded in near future, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged
on bail in connection with Piyar P.S. Case no.72 of 2025 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 Court concerned where the case is pending/successor Court,
subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall remain
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75399 of 2025(4) dt.18-02-2026
4/4
physically present in the learned trial Court on each date and
shall cooperate in the trial. In case the petitioner is absent on the
two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, the learned
trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…