Patna High Court

Harsh Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 11 February 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: KHATIM REZA

Holding

The bail application is dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Harsh Kumar Yadav, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that he was falsely implicated in the murder of his wife, who allegedly committed suicide. The informant alleged that the petitioner demanded dowry and, upon non‑payment, killed his daughter. The petitioner contended there were no eyewitnesses, he was a government employee, and the dowry demand allegation was fabricated. The prosecution and the informant’s counsel opposed bail, presenting evidence of prior dowry payments. After considering the submissions, the court declined to grant bail, directing the trial court to expedite the trial within a year. The bail application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in a dowry‑death murder case
Whether the allegations of dowry demand and murder constitute sufficient ground to deny bail
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 80(2)

Subjects

bail
dowry death
murder
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure
government employee
dowry demand

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87698 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-243 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJEKALA District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Harsh Kumar Yadav, aged about 28 years, Male, S/o Prakash Chandr Yadav,
                 R/o Gurhatta Umashankar Gali, PS- Khajekala, (Patna City), Distt- Patna
                                                                           ... ... Petitioner/s

                                                       Versus

                 The State of Bihar
                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP
                 For the Informant        :       Mr. Kaushal Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   11-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel

                   for the informant, who has appeared suo motu.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Khajekala PS Case No.243 of 2025 dated 16.06.2025, instituted

                   for the offence punishable under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the

                   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                                3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along

                   with other accused persons have committed the murder of the

                   daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of

                   dowry. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The deceased was an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87698 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                            2/3




          ill tempered lady and she herself has committed suicide. The

          petitioner has no role in the incident. Further submission is that

          the petitioner is a government employee and there is no

          occasion for him either to demand money or anything else from

          the parents of the deceased. The allegation of demand of money

          is completely false and fabricated. The petitioner is in custody

          since 17.06.2025 and two cases are pending against him.

                       5. Learned APP as well as learned counsel for the

          informant has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for

          the informant submits that earlier also money was demanded by

          the petitioner and his family members which was fulfilled by the

          father of the deceased. The informant had earlier paid rupees

          five lakhs in cash to the petitioner and thereafter also, he paid

          the money to the petitioner several times through UPI. It is also

          submitted that at the time of marriage also rupees nine lakhs and

          odd was given to the petitioner. The petitioner has killed his

          wife due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry

                       6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

          the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am

          not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

                       7. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is

          rejected.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87698 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                                        3/3




                                   8. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and

                      take all endeavour to conclude the same as early as possible,

                      preferably, within a period of one year from the date of

                      receipt/production of a copy of this order.

                                   9. The application stands dismissed.


                                                               (Khatim Reza, J)
J. Alam/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…