Patna High Court
Saroj Sahni @ Saroj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The bail application was denied as the court was not convinced that the petitioner was entitled to bail under the circumstances.
Summary
The petitioner, Saroj Sahni, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, alleging that he was falsely implicated in the death of his wife, who the informant claimed was killed over a dowry demand. The petitioner asserted a clean antecedent, that the death was due to a natural heart attack, and that no post‑mortem was conducted because the body was cremated by the family. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the lack of a post‑mortem, the absence of a death certificate, and the statutory presumption against the husband in dowry‑death cases. The court examined the credibility of the informant, the procedural lapses, and the statutory presumption, concluding that the prosecution’s case raised sufficient suspicion. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application, finding no sufficient ground to release the petitioner pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 in view of the alleged dowry‑death and lack of post‑mortem evidence
- Whether the statutory presumption against the husband in dowry‑death cases applies in the present facts
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 3(5), 80
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- presumption of guilt
- post‑mortem
- natural death
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79822 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2024 Thana- Jaitpur District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Saroj Sahni @ Saroj Kumar Son of Rajgir Sahani Resident of Village - Ema
Pagahiya, Police Station-Jaitpur, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 26-02-2026 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 and 3(5) of the BNS,
2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody
since 17.06.2025. It is next submitted that petitioner, being
husband, has been falsely implicated in the instant case with an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79822 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
allegation that daughter of the informant was married to the
petitioner in the year 2022 and on 17.07.2024, the informant
came to know that her daughter has been killed, accordingly, she
reached the place of occurrence, but then no one was found
present in the house except the mother-in-law, thus, alleges that
accused persons killed her daughter for non-fulfillment of
dowry demand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and the entire
allegation hinges around suspicion. It is further submitted that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that allegation of demand of dowry and torture is
general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that deceased
was suffering from various diseases, as such, she died a natural
death.
5. On query of the Court that as to whether
postmortem of the deceased was conducted or not, the learned
counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the body was not
sent for postmortem, but was cremated in presence of the family
members.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that though it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79822 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that the body of the deceased was cremated in
presence of her family members, but then from perusal of the
FIR, it manifests that the informant specifically alleges that on
coming to know that victim was killed, she reached the place of
occurrence and no one was found in the house except the
mother-in-law. It is also submitted that the victim died within
seven years of marriage, as such, presumption in law is also
against the petitioner and his family members. It is further
submitted that it appears that the death was not natural or else
the dead body would have been sent for postmortem for
ascertaining the cause of death, it is thus submitted that the
cause of death is not ascertained and it was the responsibility of
the petitioner, being husband, to ensure the well being of his
wife.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the victim died on account of heart attack, on which
the learned APP submits that had the victim died on account of
heart attack, in that event, the same would have been certified
by a doctor and the death certificate would have been issued, but
then no death certificate is on record.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79822 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to release the
petitioner on bail.
9. Accordingly, the instant regular bail application
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…