Patna High Court
Suraj Kumar @ Suraj YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and rejected the petitioner's application.
Summary
The petitioner, Suraj Kumar, sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 85, 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, alleging that he was falsely implicated in the alleged dowry‑related death of his wife. The informant claimed the wife was tortured for dowry and subsequently strangulated, while the petitioner contended that the death was a suicide and that the informant was not an eyewitness. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the statutory presumption against the husband in dowry death cases and the seriousness of the injuries noted in the post‑mortem report. The court examined the allegations, the presumption under dowry death law, and the petitioner's clean antecedents, but found the prosecution's case sufficiently serious to deny bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 85, 80 and 3(5) of the BNS in view of the alleged dowry death.
- Whether the statutory presumption against the husband in dowry death cases applies despite the petitioner's claim of suicide.
- Whether the presence of antemortem injuries and the seriousness of the offence preclude the grant of regular bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 3(5), 80, 85
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- presumption against husband
- suicide
- criminal procedure
- Sections 85, 80, 3(5) BNS
- husband
- post‑mortem
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8138 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2025 Thana- Marnga District- Purnia
======================================================
Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Yadav S/o Mukesh Yadav @ Mantu Resident of
Village- Maranga, P.S.- Maranga, District- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sharda Kumari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 85, 80 and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since
29.11.2025 and the informant alleges that his daughter was
married to the petitioner on 07.05.2021 and after one year of
marriage, the accused persons including the petitioner started
assaulting and torturing the victim for dowry. It is further alleged
that the victim used to convey about the torture being meted out to
her and when the informant confronted the accused persons, the
accused persons sought forgiveness. It is next alleged that on
01.07.2025, petitioner, from his mobile, called at 09:28 a.m. and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8138 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
informed that the victim committed suicide, accordingly, the
informant reached the place of occurrence and saw the dead body
of his daughter lying, thus, alleges that the victim was strangulated
to death.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner, being the husband of the deceased, has been falsely
implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further
submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence
and allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and
omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that the victim committed
suicide.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposes the
prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the informant submits that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
informant specifically alleges that after one year of the marriage,
the accused persons including the petitioner started demanding
dowry and on non-fulfillment of the demand, the victim was
tortured and whenever the informant confronted the accused
persons, they used to seek forgiveness. It is further submitted that
from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the
same records based on the postmortem report that the injuries were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8138 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
antemortem and dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature due
to pressure and compression of neck by ligature material after
suspending the body and the cause of death is asphyxia and venous
congestion due to antemortem hanging. It is next submitted that
what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that the victim died
within seven years of marriage and presumption in law is against
the husband and his family members. It is also submitted that even
presuming what has been submitted by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner to be true that the victim
committed suicide in that event also it is the husband whose
responsibility is to ensure well being of his wife but then the
husband created condition conducive for the victim to take the
extreme step of ending her life.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not
inclined to release the petitioner on bail in connection with
Maranga P.S. Case No. 229 of 2025 pending in the Court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…