Patna High Court
Prince Paswan @ Prince KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings.
Summary
The petitioner, Prince Paswan, sought regular bail in a case registered as Birpur P.S. Case No. 131 of 2025, alleging he was falsely implicated in the death of his wife, Jyosan Kumari, who allegedly died of a sudden cardiopulmonary arrest. The prosecution contended that the deceased was throttled, citing post‑mortem findings of a deep neck bruise and facial swelling, and charged the petitioner under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The petitioner argued innocence, no criminal antecedent, and presented a death certificate indicating natural causes. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged homicide and the medical evidence of asphyxiation. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, directing that the petitioner may re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending, and ordered the trial court to expedite proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case of alleged homicide under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
- Whether the post‑mortem evidence of throttling justifies denial of bail
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5), 80
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- dowry death
- throttling
- post‑mortem evidence
- high court
- Bihar
- Sections 80
- Section 3(5)
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89589 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2025 Thana- BEERPUR District- Begusarai
======================================================
Prince Paswan @ Prince Kumar, S/o Shri Uma Shankar Paswan @ Uma
Shankar Paswan, R/o vill - Bhawanandpur, P.s.- Birpur, P.O.- Panapur, Distt.-
Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 26-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Birpur P.S. Case No. 131 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution is that Jyosan Kumari
(deceased) was married to the petitioner. The informant has talked
her on 28.06.2025 and he was informed that the deceased is at
Siddhi Vinayak Care Hospital, Begusarai. Later on, she died on
same day. It is alleged that the petitioner along with others have
killed her and it is also alleged that she was being subjected to
cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89589 of 2025(4) dt.26-03-2026
2/3
been falsely implicated in the present case. The nature of
allegation is general and omnibus and that she was rushed to the
hospital where she was treated and she died. It has further been
submitted that the deceased died due to Sudden Cardio pulmonary
arrest as is apparent from the death certificate issued by Siddhi
Vinayak Critical Care & Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner is having no
criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since
04.08.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the state has vehemently
opposed the prayer of regular bail and has submitted that from
perusal of the postmortem report it will transpire that the doctor
conducting autopsy of the deceased has found following injuries
on the person of the deceased:-
(i) A deep mark of bruises bluish colour (approx 6cm x
1cm) at midline of neck about cricoid cartilage.
(ii) Swelling present over face right side.
The doctor has opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia
as a result of throttling. It has further been submitted that learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deceased was
rushed to the hospital which is apparent from Annexure-P/2 but
from perusal of Annexure-P/2 it is clear that she was given oxygen
with high flow and regarding injury of the neck, learned counsel
for the petitioner could not give satisfactory answer.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89589 of 2025(4) dt.26-03-2026
3/3
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer
for bail stands rejected.
7. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for
bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
8. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…