Patna High Court
Chandra Shekhar Yadav @ Chandra Shekhar KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage as the prosecution had established a prima facie case of dowry death and the circumstances did not merit the privilege of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandra Shekhar Yadav, sought regular bail in a criminal case alleging dowry death under sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Daizy Kumari, was assaulted by the petitioner and his mother‑in‑law and later died from asphyxia and shock due to smothering, as per the post‑mortem report. The petitioner contended innocence, arguing that the victim was treated at her paternal home and that the injuries were insufficient to cause death, and that the cause of death was smothering unrelated to the alleged assault. The informant’s counsel highlighted ten antemortem injuries, bite marks, and the FIR’s specific allegations of severe assault. The court found the petitioner’s explanations unsatisfactory, noting the prima facie evidence of culpable homicide and the seriousness of the injuries, and therefore refused bail, allowing a fresh application after six months if trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a dowry death case under IPC sections 304B, 34 and Dowry Prohibition Act section 3.
- Whether the post‑mortem findings and FIR establish a prima facie case against the petitioner sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 34
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- culpable homicide
- Indian Penal Code
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- post‑mortem
- injury
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84120 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2024 Thana- BARARI District- Katihar
======================================================
Chandra Shekhar Yadav @ Chandra Shekhar Kumar S/o- Late Vijay Yadav
Village- Bakiya Sukhari PS-Barari Distt- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rounak Kumar Singh (Pankaj)
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 17-02-2026 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)/34
of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant’s
sister, namely, Daizy Kumari (now deceased) was married to the
petitioner, namely, Chandra Shekhar Yadav. It is further alleged
that she was subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment
of demand of dowry. It is further alleged that on 23.04.2024 and
24.04.2024, she was assaulted by her husband and mother-in-
law. It is also alleged that on 24.04.2024, she was brought to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84120 of 2025(4) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
Referral Hospital, Pirpainti, and on 25.04.2024, she succumbed
to her injuries during the course of treatment.
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
during the course of investigation, it has come that the deceased
was brought to her paternal house and from there her family
members consulted a local doctor. It is further submitted that in
paragraph-68 of the case diary, it has come that she was treated
by a village doctor, namely, Amarjeet Kumar who prescribed
some painkillers. Thereafter, she slept with her mother in the
‘Varandha’ of the house and when she got serious, she was
rushed to a private hospital, Pripainti belonging to Jitu Yadav
from where she was referred to Referral Hospital, Pirpainti and
she died in course of treatment. It is further submitted that in
paragraph-69 of the case diary, it has also come that the
deceased was brought to her paternal house and was treated
by the village doctor Amarjeet Kumar. It is further submitted
that from perusal of the post-mortem report, it would
transpire that the doctor has opined that cause of death is
Asphyxia and shock due to antemortem smothering. It has
further been opined that Injury Nos. 1 to 3 were antemortem
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84120 of 2025(4) dt.17-02-2026
3/4
and caused due to pressure applied over the mouth and nose by
some soft/blunt objects. It is further opined that injury nos. 4 to
10 were antemortem and simple in nature caused by hard and
blunt substance and were not sufficient to cause death. It is
further submitted that the cause of death is smoothering and
admittedly from 24.04.2024, the deceased was at her paternal
house. Had smothering been done at her matrimonial house,
death would not have been delayed for such a long period.
5. Learned counsel for the informant from perusal of
the post-mortem report, submits that the doctor had found
altogether 10 antemortem injuries and both lips were found
swollen with two bite teeth marks on the left side. It is also
submitted that from perusal of the First Information Report, it is
clear that there are specific allegations that the deceased was
being assaulted badly.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy
this Court regarding the injury nos. 4 to 10 as to how the said
injuries were caused. From perusal of the receipt of Referral
hospital, Pirpainti, it is clear that the deceased died immediately
after reaching the hospital, prior to commencement of proper
treatment.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84120 of 2025(4) dt.17-02-2026
4/4
of the case and the material available on record, I am not
inclined to extend him the privilege of bail at this stage. The bail
application of the petitioner stands rejected. However, he may
renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not
concluded.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.