Patna High Court
Sonu Ram @ Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court denied bail to the petitioner, holding that the seriousness of the alleged offences and the evidentiary material do not warrant release at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Ram, was arrested in connection with the death of his wife Ritu Kumari, alleged to be a dowry death under IPC Sections 304B, 201 and 34. The prosecution presented a post‑mortem report indicating a neck injury and asphyxia, arguing that the death was homicidal and not a suicide. The petitioner contended that the marriage was a love marriage, denied any dowry demand, claimed the deceased was pregnant and had committed suicide, and asserted his innocence and lack of criminal antecedents. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the presence of incriminating forensic evidence. The High Court, after hearing both sides, refused bail at this stage, directing the petitioner to re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending and ordering the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a dowry death case under IPC Sections 304B, 201 and 34 at the pre‑trial stage.
- Whether the forensic evidence and circumstances justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B, 34
Subjects
- dowry death
- bail
- IPC 304B
- IPC 201
- IPC 34
- asphyxia
- criminal procedure
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89875 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-575 Year-2020 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Sonu Ram @ Sonu Kumar S/o Vishwanath Ram @ Vishwanath Rai Resident
of village- Singhai, P.S.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raju Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Samrat, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Paroo P.S. Case No. 575 of 2020 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that Ritu
Kumari (deceased) was married to the petitioner. She was being
subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of the dowry
demand of a bike and one lakh rupees in cash. It is further
alleged that on 17.10.2020, the informant came to know that all
the in-laws had killed the deceased after pressing her neck and
the dead body had been thrown in the field.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89875 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. He also submits that the marriage between the petitioner
and the deceased was a love marriage, so there is no chance of
demand of dowry and non-fulfillment thereof. He also submits
that during the course of investigation, the witnesses have stated
that after marriage, it was discovered that the deceased was
pregnant prior to marriage and that the deceased had committed
suicide and the in-laws had thrown the dead body in water. He
also submits that it is a case of suicide. He further submits that a
statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner
has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial
custody since 18.05.2025.
5. Countering this, the learned APP for the State
submits that from perusal of the postmortem report, it is clear
that the postmortem of the deceased was conducted while the
body was decomposed and the doctor conducting the autopsy on
the deceased has opined that there is one neck injury and the
cause of death is asphyxia due to pressure on the neck. The
petitioner is the husband and the conduct of the petitioner does
not show his bonafides. Had it been a case of suicide, in that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89875 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
case the dead body should not have been thrown in water. At
least a postmortem should have been conducted. As the
petitioner is the husband, he does not deserve the privilege of
bail. A report from the learned trial court was also called and
from perusal of which it is clear that till today only commitment
of the case to the Session Court has been done. Even charges
have not been framed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage,
however the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for
bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
7. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…