Patna High Court
Gulshan Kumar @ Gulsan MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Gulshan Kumar, was arrested in connection with a dowry death case (Sections 304B and 34 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act) concerning the death of his wife within seven years of marriage. He applied for bail, asserting a clean antecedent, claiming the allegations were vague, and contending that the death was a suicide by hanging, supported by the post‑mortem report. The State opposed bail, relying on the statutory presumption that the husband is liable in dowry death cases and arguing that the trial is ongoing with hostile witnesses. The court noted that the trial had commenced and that the presumption under the Dowry Prohibition Act weighed against granting bail. It also considered that the evidence of suicide did not negate the possibility of the husband having created conditions leading to the death. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a dowry death case where the victim died within seven years of marriage.
- Whether the statutory presumption under Sections 304B IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act overrides the petitioner's claim of suicide.
- Whether the stage of trial and hostile witnesses justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 34
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- IPC 304B
- presumption
- suicide
- trial stage
- hostile witnesses
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86618 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2024 Thana- Mohanpur District- Purnia
======================================================
Gulshan Kumar @ Gulsan Mahto S/o Barun Mahto R/o Village- Shanti
Nagar, Nakdehari, Ward No.02, P.S- Mohanpur, Dist- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhola Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 27-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Rabindra Kumar.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody
since 5-2-2025 and the informant alleges that his daughter was
married to petitioner about an year ago and was pregnant, next
alleges that on 12.05.2024 at 11 am, he received an information
that his daughter was killed by the accused persons including
the petitioner, accordingly he reached the place of occurrence
and also informed the police and accordingly the dead body was
taken to the hospital for postmortem.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86618 of 2025(2) dt.27-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner, being husband, has been falsely implicated in the
instant case. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and
omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that informant is not an
eye witness to the occurrence. It is also submitted that had the
petitioner been involved in the occurrence, in that event, efforts
would have been made to dispose of the dead body with a view
to conceal evidence, but then the dead body was sent for
postmortem and postmortem report records that the cause of
death as asphyxia on account of hanging, it is thus submitted that
the deceased committed suicide. It is next submitted that no
doubt the death took place within seven years of marriage, but
then all deaths are not dowry deaths and the petitioner was in
Punjab when death occurred.
5. Learned A.P.P., Sri Rabindra Kumar vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits what is
not in dispute rather stands admitted is that daughter of the
informant died within seven years of marriage and in law also
presumption is against the husband and his family members. It is
next submitted that whether the petitioner was present at the
place of occurrence or was at Punjab at the time when the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86618 of 2025(2) dt.27-02-2026
3/3
occurrence is alleged to have taken place, is an aspect to be
adjudicated in the trial. It is also submitted no doubt the
postmortem report records that victim died on account of
asphyxia on account of hanging as such she committed suicide,
as is being submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, but then if the victim committed suicide that
amply demonstrates that petitioner being husband created
conditions conducive for the victim to take extreme steps of
ending her life.
6. On query of the court with regard to the stage of
the case, the the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that trial has commenced and three witnesses
have been examined and they have turned hostile, on which the
learned APP submits that trial has commenced, as such the
petitioner be not released on bail, since trial is continuing.
7. Considering the submission made by learned APP,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…