Patna High Court
Ravi KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
Bail was denied as the seriousness of the alleged dowry‑related homicide and the supporting forensic evidence warranted continued detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Kumar, sought bail in a case (Natwar Bazar P.S. Case No.77 of 2025) alleging his involvement in the death of his wife, Shobha Kumari, who was pregnant and reportedly subjected to dowry demands. The prosecution presented a post‑mortem report indicating multiple abrasions, neck contusion, and cause of death as cardio‑respiratory failure due to homicidal asphyxia, suggesting assault. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting the informant’s application indicated a misconception, denying any dowry demand, and highlighting his lack of criminal antecedents while being in custody since 12‑04‑2025. The court examined the seriousness of the allegations under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and the evidentiary weight of the autopsy findings. Concluding that the nature of the allegations warranted continued detention, the court rejected the bail petition but allowed a fresh application after six months if the trial remained pending.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. in a case involving alleged dowry‑related homicide.
- Whether the evidence, particularly the post‑mortem report, justifies denial of bail.
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- homicide
- Section 80 B.N.S.
- Section 3(5) B.N.S.
- criminal procedure
- post‑mortem evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81183 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2025 Thana- NATWAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Ravi Kumar, Son of Algu Ram, Resident of Village- Raghunathpur Tola, P.O.-
Saraon, P.S.- Natwar, District- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Kant, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Natwar Bazar P.S. Case No.77 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the
informant has been killed by her in-laws. On this information
when the informant went to the matrimonial house of the
deceased, he found spots on her neck and abrasion which was
bleeding. The informant suspects that the deceased was killed by
pressing her neck. The deceased Shobha Kumari was married to
the petitioner. She was also pregnant. She has complained that she
was being subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81183 of 2025(5) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
dowry demand of motorcycle and other articles. Petitioner is the
husband.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has
been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been
submitted that in this case, the informant has given an application
before the learned trial Court that he has filed this case due to
misconception. There was no demand of dowry and the deceased
was mentally ill. Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and
he is languishing in judicial custody since 12.04.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the state has vehemently
opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that from perusal of
the postmortem report it will transpire that the doctor conducting
autopsy of the deceased has found multiple abrasion of different
size and the side of neck contusion on lateral side of left mandible
of about 3cm x 1/2cm. The doctor conducting autopsy has opined
that the cause of death is cardio respiratory failure due shock
because of homic Asphyxia. He has further submitted that the
injuries on the person of the deceased shows that she was
assaulted. Petitioner is the husband.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81183 of 2025(5) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
for bail stands rejected.
7. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail
after six months if the trial is not concluded.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…