Patna High Court
Arvind Sharma @ Arvind KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court denied regular bail, holding that the petitioner's prayer stands rejected.
Summary
The petitioner, Arvind Sharma, sought regular bail in a case (Gamhariya P.S. Case No. 202 of 2024) where he is accused under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. for the alleged dowry‑related death of his wife, Karo Kumari, who was found throttled. The prosecution presented a post‑mortem report indicating asphyxia due to throttling and argued that the husband, as the primary accused, must explain the circumstances of death. The petitioner’s counsel contended that he has no criminal antecedent, is innocent, and has been in custody since 2 April 2025, also alleging that the informant’s family handled the cremation and belongings. The court, after hearing both sides, found the evidence sufficient to deny bail at this stage, directing that the petitioner may re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending and ordering the trial court to expedite the proceedings. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. in a dowry‑death case.
- Whether the post‑mortem findings and the petitioner’s alleged role justify denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner has sufficiently disclosed the circumstances of the deceased’s death.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- regular bail
- dowry death
- throttling
- post‑mortem report
- criminal procedure
- Section 103(1) B.N.S.
- Section 3(5) B.N.S.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82471 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2024 Thana- GAMAHARIYA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Arvind Sharma @ Arvind Kumar Son of Late Surdas Sharma R/o Village -
Bhelwa, P.S. - Gamhariya, District - Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with Gamhariya P.S. Case No. 202 of 2024 instituted
for the offence under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Karo
Kumari (deceased) was married to this petitioner on 10.04.2023.
It is further alleged that she was subjected to cruelty on account
of non-fulfillment of dowry demand. On 30.09.2024, the
informant got information that his daughter has been killed by
throttling. When the informant went to the matrimonial house of
the deceased, he found that the in-laws were going to cremate
the deceased. There were mark of violence on the neck of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82471 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
deceased and after that, he informed the police.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during course of
investigation, it has come that the informant and his family
members were there in the cremation of the deceased and they
also took the belongings of the deceased from her matrimonial
house. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that
the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is
languishing in judicial custody since 02.04.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and has
submitted that from perusal of the postmortem report, it is clear
that the board of doctors who have conducted the autopsy of the
deceased have found multiple bruise over interior and lateral
part of the neck and cause of death is opined asphyxia due to
throttling. It is a case of throttling. The deceased has died in the
matrimonial house. It is the duty of the petitioner to disclose the
circumstances under which, the deceased has died which is not
being disclosed by the petitioner. He is the husband and the
main thrust of allegation is also against him.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82471 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
and considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, I
am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and,
as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. However, the petitioner may be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
8. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
and conclude the same as soon as possible.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…