Patna High Court

Kunal Ray @ Kunal KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 2 April 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The Court refused to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Summary

The petitioner, Kunal Ray, sought regular bail in a case registered under sections 304(b) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of his sister-in-law. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, together with others, killed the informant’s sister, while the petitioner claimed innocence, asserting that the death was due to electrocution and that witnesses gave contradictory statements. The State opposed bail, highlighting the absence of a post‑mortem report because the body was cremated without family presence, thereby casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that, as the husband of the deceased and the incident occurring in the matrimonial home, the petitioner must disclose the circumstances of death, but nonetheless declined to grant bail at this stage. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and allowed the petitioner to renew his bail prayer after six months if the trial remains pending.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner under sections 304(b) and 201 of the IPC.
Whether the lack of a post‑mortem report and contradictory witness statements affect the bail decision.
Whether the petitioner’s relationship to the deceased and the location of death warrant bail denial.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304(b)

Subjects

bail
IPC 304B
IPC 201
murder
electrocution
post-mortem
contradictory statements
trial expediting

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80759 of 2025
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-350 Year-2021 Thana- MANER District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Kunal Ray @ Kunal Kumar S/O Late Bhushan Ray @ Late Kariya Ray R/O -
                 Sadikpur, P.S - Maner, District - Patna


                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar


                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Meena Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   02-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under sections 304 (B)

                   and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner

                   was married to the sister of the informant, and it is alleged that

                   he, along with others, committed the murder of the informant’s

                   sister.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in

                   connection with the present case. It is further submitted that

                   although the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, there is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80759 of 2025(6) dt.02-04-2026
                                            2/3




          no specific allegation against him. It is further submitted that,

          during the course of investigation, it has transpired that the

          death occurred due to electrocution. It is also submitted that the

          witnesses       examined        during      investigation   have   given

          contradictory statements; while one witness has stated that the

          deceased was being assaulted by her in-laws, others have stated

          that she died due to electrocution.

                       5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

          the prayer for bail and submitting that                 no post-mortem

          examination of the deceased was conducted, as the dead body

          was cremated, and the parents or family members of the

          deceased were not present at the time of cremation, which casts

          serious doubt on the prosecution case.

                       6. However, considering that the petitioner is the

          husband of the deceased and the death occurred in the

          matrimonial home, it is obligatory on his part to disclose the

          circumstances under which the deceased died.

                       7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the

          petitioner at this stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to

          renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not

          concluded.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80759 of 2025(6) dt.02-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                                   8. The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the

                      trial.




                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…