Patna High Court

Anil Kumar Gond @ Anil GondversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 20 February 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

Bail was denied as the trial was at an advanced stage and the accused, being the husband, bore primary responsibility for the alleged dowry death.

Summary

Anil Kumar Gond, the husband of a deceased woman, was charged under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly killing his wife over a dowry dispute. He applied for bail, claiming he never demanded dowry, had no criminal record, and that post‑mortem reports did not show poison. The prosecution highlighted antemortem injuries on the victim and argued that the husband bears primary responsibility for his wife's welfare. The court noted that the trial was already at an advanced stage, with six witnesses examined and likely to conclude within six months. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the husband's role, and the imminent conclusion of the trial, the court refused bail and directed the lower court to expedite the proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused husband in a dowry death case under Sections 304B and 34 IPC given the nature of the allegations and the stage of trial.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 34

Subjects

bail
dowry death
IPC 304B
IPC 34
husband
criminal trial
expedited trial
antemortem injuries

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80061 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2024 Thana- CHAND District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
                 ======================================================
                 Anil Kumar Gond @ Anil Gond son of Rajendra Prasad Gond Resident of
                 village- Baheriyan P.S. -Chand, District- Kaimur at Bhabua
                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Rajani Kant Pandey
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   20-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal

                   Code.

                                3. Petitioner along with other accused persons are said

                   to have killed the daughter of the informant for non-fulfillment

                   of demand of dowry.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has been made an accused in this case on account of

                   the fact that he is the husband of the deceased, however, he has

                   never demanded the dowry nor subjected her to cruel treatment.

                   Further, the postmortem report also does not indicate the cause

                   of death and the Viscera report also does not indicate the

                   presence of any metallic or volatile poison. The petitioner is in

                   custody since 22.06.2024 with no criminal antecedent.
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80061 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026
                                                         2/2




                                    5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for

                       the informant have opposed the application for bail on the

                       ground that certain antemortem injuries were found on the right

                       eye brow and neck of the deceased and further, the trial is in

                       progress.

                                    6. A report with regard to the stage of trial also

                       indicates that total of six witnesses have been examined

                       including the five witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet and

                       the trial court is likely to conclude the trial within a period of six

                       months.

                                    7. In view of the allegations and considering that the

                       petitioner is the husband of the deceased, who is primarily

                       responsible for the welfare of his wife, coupled with the fact that

                       the trial has reached its advanced stage and likely to be

                       concluded within six months, I am not inclined to enlarge the

                       petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected in

                       connection Chand P.S. Case No. 86 of 2024.

                                        8. However, learned court below is directed to

                       expedite the trial without giving unnecessary adjournments and

                       conclude the same preferably within a period of six months.



devendra/-                                       (Soni Shrivastava, J)
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…