Patna High Court

Vinay RaiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PARTHA SARTHY

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage due to the gravity of the allegations and the lack of progress in the trial.

Summary

The petitioner, Vinay Rai, sought regular bail in a case registered under sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code concerning the alleged dowry‑related death of his wife. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner brutally assaulted his wife, leading to her death from head injuries, and no witnesses had been examined despite the charge being framed. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and that the allegations were vague, offering to cooperate with the trial. The State opposed the bail, and the trial court report confirmed the absence of witness examination. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the post‑mortem findings, and the lack of substantive progress in the trial, the High Court refused bail, allowing the petitioner to re‑apply after six months if the trial shows no substantial progress.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused under IPC sections 304B and 34 in view of the seriousness of the alleged dowry death.
Whether the prosecution's failure to examine witnesses justifies the grant of bail.
Whether the evidence of head injury and the commencement of trial preclude bail at this stage.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 34

Subjects

bail
dowry death
IPC 304B
common intention
criminal procedure
high court
regular bail
witness examination

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88522 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2020 Thana- AKILPUR District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Vinay Rai S/o Sipahi Rai Resident of Village - Manash , P.S.- Akilpur,
                 District- Saran (Chapra)
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   24-02-2026                     1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                   2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant

                   of regular bail in connection with Akilpur P.S.Case no. 36 of

                   2020 registered under sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal

                   Code.

                                   3. As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the

                   informant who was married to the petitioner herein in the year

                   2019 was tortured for dowry. On her protest of illicit

                   relationship between the petitioner and the co-accused, she was

                   assaulted brutally by the petitioner and taken to the hospital

                   where she died in course of treatment.

                                   4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The

                   allegations are general and omnibus in nature. Inspite of the

                   petitioner being in custody since 14.3.2024 and charge having
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88522 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     been framed in the learned trial Court on 13.8.2025 not a single

                     witness is being produced by the prosecution. The petitioner

                     undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

                                     5. The application for bail is opposed by learned

                     APP for the State.

                                     6. A report was called for from the learned trial

                     Court. As per the report received contained in letter dated

                     19.1.2026 inspite of charge having been framed on 13.8.2025,

                     no witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution.

                                     7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                     taking into consideration, the allegation of assault by the

                     petitioner who happens to be the husband of the deceased,

                     injuries caused by hard and blunt substance having been found

                     in the postmortem report in paragraph no. 44 of the case diary

                     and further, the cause of death is said to be head injury

                     (cardiogenic cerebral damage) together with the trial having

                     commenced in the learned trial Court, the Court is not inclined

                     to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

                                     8. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his

                     prayer for bail after six months, if there is no substantial

                     progress in the trial.


Bibhash                                                       (Partha Sarthy, J)
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…