Patna High Court

SUSHIL MUKHIYAversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 19 February 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Sushil Mukhiya, was charged under Sections 80, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly killing the daughter of an informant over a dowry demand. He contended that the death was a suicide by hanging, that he was falsely implicated, and that he has no prior criminal record, having been in custody since 30 October 2024. The State argued that, as the husband of the deceased, he bears responsibility for her welfare and that the trial is at an advanced stage, making bail inappropriate. The trial court report indicated that three of four witnesses had been examined and the investigating officer was to be summoned, with the next hearing set for 3 February 2026. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner’s marital relationship to the victim, and the advanced stage of the trial, the High Court refused bail and ordered the trial court to expedite the proceedings within four months. The bail petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the nature of the offences alleged.
Whether the advanced stage of the trial and the petitioner’s relationship to the deceased justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 351(2), 352, 80

Subjects

bail
dowry death
homicide
trial stage
criminal procedure
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
false implication
suicide
asphyxia
custodial detention

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75575 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-304 Year-2024 Thana- MAHISHI District- Saharsa
                 ======================================================
                 SUSHIL MUKHIYA S/O BABU PRASAD MUKHIYA R/o vill - Gandaul @
                 Garaul, P.s.- Maheshi (Jalai O.P), Distt.- Saharsa.        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar.                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   19-02-2026                    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, 352, 351(2) and 3(5)

                   of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                                   3.     As per the prosecution case, the petitioner in

                   association of other co-accused is said to have killed the

                   daughter of the informant on non-fulfillment of demand of

                   dowry.

                                   4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the

                   petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this

                   case. As a matter of fact, the deceased had committed suicide

                   since the marriage was solemnized against her will. Further, the

                   victim was also short tempered and the postmortem report also

                   indicates the cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging. The
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75575 of 2025(4) dt.19-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing

                      in custody since 30.10.2024.

                                      5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing

                      the bail petition submitted that the petitioner, being the husband

                      of the deceased, is primarily responsible for welfare of his wife

                      and considering the advance stage of the trial, does not deserve

                      the privilege of bail.

                                         6. By order dated 21.01.2026, a report had been

                      called for with regard to the stage of the case which

                      demonstrates that three out of the four witnesses have been

                      examined and one witness, the Investigating Officer has been

                      summoned and the next date was fixed as 03.02.2026.

                                      7. Taking into consideration the facts and

                      circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that

                      petitioner is the husband of the deceased coupled with the fact

                      that the trial of the case is at advance stage, I am not inclined to

                      enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby

                      rejected. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to

                      expedite the trial and conclude it as soon as possible, preferably

                      within a period of four months.


                                                (Soni Shrivastava, J)

Trivedi/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…