Patna High Court
Chhotu Kumar @ Kunal KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Chhotu Kumar, brother‑in‑law of a deceased woman, was arrested in July 2025 in a dowry‑death case filed under Sections 85, 80, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. He applied for bail, claiming a clean record, false implication, and that his confession was obtained in violation of Section 181, rendering it inadmissible. The State argued that the victim’s body was recovered based on the petitioner’s confession, that the death occurred within 15 months of marriage, and that the statutory presumption under the dowry‑death provision applies to the husband’s family. The petitioner contended that the FIR did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 80 and that the confession should be excluded. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, finding the prosecution’s case sufficient to keep the petitioner in custody.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the petitioner in a dowry‑death case under Sections 85, 80, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
- Whether the confession recorded under Section 180 of the BNS, 2023 is admissible despite alleged contravention of Section 181.
- Whether the facts alleged in the FIR satisfy the ingredients of Section 80 (dowry death) of the BNS, 2023.
- Whether the statutory presumption against the husband’s family in a dowry‑death case applies to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- BNS, 2023 — s. 180, 181, 238, 3(5), 80, 85
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- confession admissibility
- Section 80 BNS
- Section 85 BNS
- Section 238 BNS
- Section 3(5) BNS
- Section 180 BNS
- Section 181 BNS
- presumption of guilt
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89020 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2025 Thana- Kadirganj P.S. District- Nawada
======================================================
Chhotu Kumar @ Kunal Kumar Son of Manoj Singh Resident of Vill.-
Loharpura, Sadipur, P.S. and Dist.- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.M. Ashraf, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ejaz Akhtar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Binod Kr. Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 03-04-2026 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. SM Ashraf, learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra
Bhushan Prasad and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 85, 80, 238 and 3(5) of the
BNS, 2023.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Nawada in
compliance of the order dated 18.03.2026 is present in the Court
along with the Station House Officer-cum-Investigating Officer.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent and is in custody since 07.07.2025 and the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89020 of 2025(5) dt.03-04-2026
2/5
alleges that her daughter was married to Kundan on 18-4-2024,
next alleges that her daughter informed on mobile that her in-
laws including the husband are demanding dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs
and a motorcycle and for nonfulfillment of the demand, she is
tortured, further on 3-7-2025 in between 7-8 AM, the informant
contacted the petitioner (brother-in-law of the deceased) when
he informed that he is not at home, thereafter on 4-7-2025, the
informant’s son-in-law informed that her daughter has left the
house and is not traceable.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that entire
allegation hinges around suspicion. It is also submitted that
though in the FIR, it is alleged that the victim was being
tortured for non-fulfillment of dowry demand, but then the
allegations do not satisfy the requirements of the offence in
terms of Section 80 of the BNS, as the case subsequently was
made out, it is next submitted that husband of the victim was
left by the police on PR Bond.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Nawada along with
the SHO-cum-Investigating Officer were directed to remain
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89020 of 2025(5) dt.03-04-2026
3/5
physically present before this Court to explain that on what
basis the husband of the victim was left on PR Bond while the
instant petitioner who is brother-in-law of the deceased was
arrested.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Nawada submits that
the date of occurrence is 04.07.2025 and the dead body of the
deceased was recovered on 05.07.2025 based on the
confessional statement of the instant petitioner and the body was
in such a mutilated condition that in the postmortem also, the
doctors were not able to come to a clear conclusion that what
was the reason for the cause of death.
8. At this stage, the learned Senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner interjects and submits that the
statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 180
BNSS and based on the said statement, it is being submitted by
the Superintendent of Police, Nawada that the dead body was
recovered, but then it is submitted that petitioner was made to
sign his confessional statement which is barred by Section 181
BNSS. It is next submitted that since the confession itself is an
illegality, hence the said confessional statement cannot be relied
upon while considering the regular bail application of the
petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89020 of 2025(5) dt.03-04-2026
4/5
9. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also
submits that no doubt allegation is of demand of dowry, but then
the ingredients of Section 80 of the BNS is not attracted in the
nature of allegations as alleged in the FIR, on which the learned
APP for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad interjects and
submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that
dead body of the victim was recovered and the same was
recovered based on the confessional statement of the petitioner
and the marriage of the victim with Kundan was performed on
18.04.2024 and the date of occurrence is 04.07.2025, as such
the victim was killed within 15 months of marriage, as such, in
law presumption is against the husband and his family members.
It is also submitted that it appears that the victim was brutally
murdered and thereafter her dead body was buried and the same
was exhumed by the police at the instance of the petitioner and
the body was in such a mutilated condition that even the doctors
were not able to satisfy themselves that as to what was the
reason for the cause of death.
10. The Superintendent of Police, who is present in
the Court, submits that he will ensure that the trial is expedited
and sincere efforts would be made to ensure that all the official
witnesses appear before the Court as and when required.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89020 of 2025(5) dt.03-04-2026
5/5
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
12. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands
rejected.
13. The personal appearance of the Superintendent of
Police, Nawada and the SHO-cum-Investigating Officer of the
case is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.