Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar Ray @ RakeshversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the allegations of dowry death and related offences are serious and the investigation against the petitioner remains pending.
Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Ray, applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 304B, 498A, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and a provision of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated in the alleged dowry‑death of his wife Nitu Kumari. The FIR was lodged after the wife was reported missing and later presumed murdered, with the petitioner and his family accused of killing her and concealing the body. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserted that co‑accused had already obtained anticipatory bail, and highlighted his clean criminal record. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the dowry‑death allegation and that investigation against the petitioner was still pending. The court, after considering the gravity of the offences and the ongoing investigation, refused to grant bail, rejecting the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences (dowry death, cruelty, and concealment of evidence) and pending investigation.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to co‑accused influences the petitioner's bail application.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. ¾
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B, 498A
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- IPC
- criminal procedure
- anticipatory bail
- investigation
- charge-sheet
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78183 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2024 Thana- MAHNAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Ray @ Rakesh Son of Ram Pravesh Ray, Resident of Village
-Bhauwa, ward no 16, Police Station -Patori, Dist- Samastipur. P/A- Jhausa
Road, Sarswati Colony, Thanesar, P.S.- krishna Gate, Dist- Kurukshetra
Haryana
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sweety Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest,
in connection with Mahnar P.S. Case No. 43 of 2024, dated
21.02.2024, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 304(B), 498(A) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and
¾ of D.P. Act.
3. The F.I.R. has been lodged under Section 156(3)
Cr.PC on complaint petition dated 26.07.2023 filed before
learned jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate and as per the
allegation, the deceased was married with the petitioner on
10.03.2017 as per Hindu Customs and Rites. However, after the
marriage, illegal demand of dowry started and on account of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78183 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
non-fulfillment of the same, the deceased was subjected to
torture by the petitioner and his family members. In the course
of time, one son and one daughter also born to her. It is also
falsely alleged by the petitioner that the deceased-wife was
having illicit relationship with her father-in-law and brother-in-
law. On 20.07.2023 no contact could be made between the
deceased/Nitu Kumari and her family members, they developed
suspicion about her not being in this world. Hence, they went to
the matrimonial house of the deceased but they could not find
the deceased in her house. The petitioner and his all family
members were absconding from the house and on inquiry about
the deceased, the mother-in-law/Patasia Devi told them that she
had left their house after leaving behind the children, but later
on he came to know that petitioner and his other family
members had killed Nitu Kumari and they made the dead body
of the deceased disappeared in the area of Mahnar Police Station
so that the father and her family members may be falsely
implicated by them and when the informant and his family
members started taking the children, they were snatched by the
petitioner and his family members and despite written report to
the police, they did not lodge the case and hence, criminal
complaint was filed on which F.I.R. was lodged under Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78183 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
156(3) Cr.PC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. She further submits that petitioner is husband and his other
family members, who are co-accused, have already got
anticipatory bail. She further submits that as a matter of fact, the
wife of the petitioner has been killed by the family members of
her maike and hence, he has already lodged Mahnar P.S. Case
No. 215 of 2023 for offence punishable under Sections 302 and
201 read with Section 34 of of the Indian Penal Code. She
further submits that as per the investigation, charge-sheet has
been submitted against co-acucsed, Soni Devi @ Soniya Devi
and the supplementary investigation against the petitioner and
other co-accused are still pending.
5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier
either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.
6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the
bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.
8. Considering the fact that there is allegation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78183 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
dowry death and one of the co-accused has been already charge-
sheeted and investigation is pending against the petitioner and
other co-accused, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on
bail.
9. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner
stands rejected.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
ravishankar/-
U T
Checking your session…