Patna High Court
Randhir Kumar @ Randhir SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail is denied at this stage as the petitioner, being the husband of the deceased, must first explain the circumstances of her death.
Summary
The petitioner, Randhir Kumar, sought bail in a case under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to the alleged dowry‑related death of his wife. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was killed by her in‑laws for non‑payment of dowry, while the post‑mortem indicated death by hanging. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and that the allegations against him were vague and omnibus. The State argued that, as the husband, the petitioner bears the onus of explaining the circumstances of his wife's death and that the post‑mortem supports the prosecution’s case. The court, finding the onus on the petitioner and the seriousness of the allegations, refused bail, directing the trial court to expedite the trial and allowing the petitioner to renew the bail application if the trial is not concluded within six months.
Issues considered
- The petitioner’s entitlement to bail under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the husband, as the deceased’s spouse, bears the onus of explaining the death in a dowry‑death case.
- The adequacy of the evidence, including the post‑mortem report, to justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 80
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- husband onus
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 80
- Section 3(5)
- post‑mortem report
- expedited trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84512 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2025 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Singh S/o Surendra Singh R/o Village - Moriya,
P.S - Panapur, District - Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Chetna, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Panapur P.S. Case No. 125 of 2025 instituted for the offence
under Sections 80 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Prosecution case in short is that daughter of the
informant has been done to death at her matrimonial house by
her in-laws due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner is in custody since 13.04.2025. Petitioner
bears no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in
paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84512 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
5. It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s
counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. There is no
specific allegation attributed to the petitioner, rather allegation is
general and omnibus in nature. Postmortem report suggest the
cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is
fervently submitted that petitioner, being the husband of the
deceased, bears the onus of explaining the circumstances
leading to her death. It is next submitted that postmortem report
corroborates the allegation levelled against the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and taking into account the fact that petitioner, being
the husband of the deceased, bears the onus of explaining the
circumstances leading to her death, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail at this stage. Prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
8. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and
unnecessary adjournments.
9. However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84512 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
rajkishore/-
U
Checking your session…