Patna High Court
Musaraf HussainversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, under Section 438 CrPC read with Section 482 of the B.N.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Musaraf Hussain, applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in Panapur P.S. Case No. 285 of 2025, where his sister‑in‑law was found dead by hanging. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others strangulated the victim, invoking Sections 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The petitioner argued that the death was a suicide, that the post‑mortem report showed hanging without any signs of strangulation, and that he had a clean antecedent. The State opposed bail, contending that as the husband he could not escape liability for his wife's unnatural death. The High Court, after reviewing the post‑mortem findings and the petitioner's submissions, granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC read with Section 482 of the B.N.S., subject to strict conditions. The order also clarified that its observations would not affect the trial proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in view of the allegations of dowry‑related death and alleged strangulation.
- Whether the post‑mortem report negates the prosecution's claim of strangulation and justifies bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5), 482(2), 80
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.
- dowry death
- suicide
- post‑mortem report
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8286 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-285 Year-2025 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Musaraf Hussain S/o Mulazim Hussain @ Molajim Hussain Resident of
village - Sonbarsa, P.s.- Panapur, Distt.- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Mili Kumari, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Amitesh Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Panapur P.S. Case No. 285 of 2025 dated 11.10.2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and
3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the
informant has alleged that his sister was married to the
petitioner around two years back and she was being tortured for
dowry by the in-laws. It is alleged that the informant had
dropped his sister on 08.10.2025 around 04.30 P.M. and on the
very next day i.e. 09.10.2025, he received a call and was
informed that his sister had died. It is alleged that he came to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8286 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
sasural of his sister and he found the dead body of his sister
hanging. It is alleged that all the named accused persons
including the petitioner had strangulated his sister to death.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and it is
evident that the wife of the petitioner had gone to her parents
house earlier and had came back on 08.10.2025 and on the very
next day i.e. 09.10.2025, she has committed suicide. It is further
submitted that from perusal of the Post-mortem report, it would
be evident that the cause of death is stated to be asphyxia due to
hanging and there are no sign of strangulation found as alleged
in the F.I.R. It has further been submitted that the wife of the
petitioner was forced to go to her sasural against her wishes
because of such fact the wife of the petitioner had committed
suicide. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner
or the other family members were instrumental in killing the
wife of the petitioner/ sister of the informant. It has lastly been
submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and
submitted that the petitioner being the husband can not shy
away from the unnatural death of his wife within two years of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8286 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/4
marriage. It is further submitted that the wife was found hanging
at her sasural therefore, the petitioner being the husband was
answerable for her death.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking
into account the report of the Post-moretem, the petitioner,
above named, is directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Panapur P.S. Case No. 285 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of BNSS as
well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial
and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8286 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
4/4
will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent
of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the
petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the trial court
shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the
above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in
the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…