Patna High Court
Badal Chauhan @ Badal KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC is denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Badal Chauhan, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR alleging his involvement in the murder of his daughter-in-law and dowry-related offences under IPC sections 302, 304B and 201. He contended that he has a clean record, was not present at the crime scene as evidenced by mobile tower data, and that the allegations were false and motivated by a family dispute. The State, represented by the APP and the informant, argued that the death of the daughter-in-law is established, that the petitioner had a motive related to dowry demands, and that the circumstances suggested his involvement. The court examined the material on record, including the FIR, statements, and forensic evidence, and found that a prima facie case existed against the petitioner. Consequently, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail, holding that the petitioner could not be afforded the benefit of Section 438 of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in the present circumstances
- Whether the FIR and the material on record disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner
- Whether the petitioner is likely to flee, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 304B
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- dowry death
- IPC sections 302 304B 201
- bail jurisprudence
- presumption of guilt
- mobile tower evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9044 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2024 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Nawada
======================================================
Badal Chauhan @ Badal Kumar Son of Sri Mithilesh Chauhan Resident of
village Milki Beldari, P.S.- Sitamarhi, District - Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Thakur, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ajay
Thakur, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.56/2024 dated 23.06.2024,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
304(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that his daughter was married to the petitioner in the
year 2023, out of the wedlock, a child was born, next alleges
that he had a talk in the night with his samdhi and samdhan,
who asked him to bring Panchayat or else they will ask his
daughter to leave or kill her, when he called his samdhi in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9044 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/4
morning, his mobile was switched off, accordingly he along
with his family members reached the matrimonial house of his
daughter but the house of locked and no one was present, thus
alleges that accused persons killed his daughter and disposed
the dead body, further petitioner used to assault the victim for
non-fulfillment of dowry demand of Rs.5 lacs, TV and Fridge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner being husband 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 informant himself alleges that he had a talk with the parents
of the petitioner, who were asking him to bring Panchayat or
else the victim would be killed. It is further submitted that
petitioner works as a labourer at Sahebganj and the police has
also investigated the CDR of the mobile number of the
petitioner and found the tower location on 22.06.2024 of the
said mobile at Mirza chak, P.S. Shanti Nagar, District-Sahebgnj.
It is thus submitted that the petitioner was not present at the
place of occurrence. It is fairly submitted that the dead body of
the victim was recovered from Falgu river near a Shiv temple at
Khijarsarai.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9044 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
3/4
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the informant submits that what is not in dispute
rather stands admitted is that the daughter of the informant died
and her dead body was recovered from Falgu river at
Khijarsarai. It is further submitted that the marriage was only
two years old as such in law also the presumption is against the
husband and his family members. It is next submitted that from
perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest
that informant specifically alleges that petitioner used to assault
the victim for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. It is further
submitted that it does not appear probable that the dead body
would have travelled 40-42 km from the place of occurrence to
be recovered from Falgu river. It is next submitted that
statement of the mother-in-law of the deceased was recorded by
the police, wherein she has stated that motorcycle was being
demanded under the threat that if motorcycle is not given, in
that event, the petitioner may commit something and she also
disclosed that the victim consumed poison in anger. It is next
submitted that even presuming that the victim committed
suicide by consuming poison, it was husband who created
condition conducive for the victim to take extreme step of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9044 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
4/4
ending her life. It is also submitted that investigation in the case
is still continuing.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…