Patna High Court
Alok KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner, holding that the seriousness of the dowry‑death allegations outweighs any claim of non‑participation.
Summary
Alok Kumar, an Indian Army serviceman, faced an anticipatory bail application in a dowry‑death case (PS Case No. 759 of 2024) where the informant alleged that Kumar's sister-in‑law was tortured for dowry and later found dead. The FIR charged Kumar under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The petitioner argued that his military service precluded any involvement and that the incident occurred before he could reach the scene. The informant contended that the deceased was subjected to dowry‑related torture and cited a Supreme Court observation on the gravity of dowry deaths. The court, referencing the Supreme Court’s stance in Lal Muni Devi v. State of Bihar, found the allegations serious enough to deny anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. in a dowry‑death case.
- Whether the petitioner’s service in the Indian Army bars his participation in the alleged offence.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5), 80(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- Section 80(2) B.N.S.
- Section 3(5) B.N.S.
- Indian Army
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7661 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-759 Year-2024 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Alok Kumar Son of Prabhash Singh R/o Village - Lohia Nagar, Mela Road,
P.S. - Sitamarhi, Dist. - Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
For the informant : Mr. Rohit Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Rohit Ranjan, learned counsel for the
informant beside learned APP representing the informant.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 759 of 2024 registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the
B.N.S., lodged on 07.11.2024 by the informant Atul Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that his sister was married with the petitioner in the year 2015
but was always tortured for dowry. The allegation is that ten
days prior to her death, she was assaulted by her in-laws. The
informant reached there and settled the dispute. The petitioner
was also informed who is serving in the Indian Army and he
wanted that his children be taken to the house of the informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7661 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
4. On 05.11.2024, he had a conversation with the
sister and she wanted to come and witness the Chhath Pooja but
when he reached the in-laws house on the next morning, found
the room of his sister locked and the phone switched off.
Sensing something has happened, as he tried to break the lock,
the in-laws resorted to assault. Later, in the presence of Police,
the lock of his sister’s room was broken and found the sister
dead with injuries on her body. This led to the F.I.R..
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that a perusal of the F.I.R. would show that he was serving with
the Indian Army at the relevant time and as such, cannot have
any role in the matter. Further, as per the F.I.R. he also requested
the informant to take them to his house but in between, the
unfortunate incident took place.
6. The informant is appearing and he has pointed out
that when the informant reached the place, the room was locked
and they were not ready to give any information whatsoever.
Further, only with the help of Police, when the lock was broken
that the alleged killing came to the light. He has further taken
this Court to paragraph no.101 of the case diary to show process
already stands issued against the petitioner by a competent
court. The submission is that though in service, it was on his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7661 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
insistence that the deceased was subjected to torture by the in-
laws.
7. Learned counsel for the informant has further taken
this Court to an order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lal
Muni Devi vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (Cr. Appeal No. 1626 of
2026) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside
the bail granted to the husband by the Patna High Court
observed that the Dowry deaths are profound disgrace and a
major social evil representing a severe violation of human rights
and dignity.
8. Paragraph no.15 of the order in Lal Muni Devi
(supra) read as follows:
“15. Dowry deaths are indeed a profound
disgrace and a major social evil representing a
severe violation of human rights and dignity.
Despite the legal prohibitions, this practice
continues to result in the unnatural deaths of
thousands of women often through murder or
driven to suicide because of greed driven
demands for money or valuable from the groom’s
family. Dowry deaths are a severe blot on
society.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7661 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
9. He concludes by submitting that the petitioner’s
husband has played an important role leading to the unfortunate
death of the lady.
10. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the
parties, the allegation that has come against the petitioner as
also the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Muni
Devi (supra), this Court is not inclined to extend him the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
11. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…