Patna High Court
Umesh PatelversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail is denied as the seriousness of the offence and the specific allegations against the petitioner do not merit release on bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Umesh Patel, sought bail in a case where his wife allegedly died due to dowry-related violence, with the prosecution alleging he murdered her for non‑fulfilment of dowry demands. The petition argued that he was innocent, not present at the time of death, and that the death was a suicide by hanging, with no prior criminal record. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the specific allegation of murder and the petitioner’s duty to explain the cause of death. The court examined the seriousness of the charges under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the gravity of the alleged offence. Concluding that the nature of the accusation warranted custody, the court denied bail, directing the trial court to expedite the trial and allowing a future bail application if the trial exceeds four months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in a dowry‑death murder case?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 80
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- murder
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- Section 80
- Section 3(5)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91688 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-317 Year-2025 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran
======================================================
Umesh Patel son of Lalan Patel @ Lalan Raut Resident Of Village -
Upadhyay tola, Ps- Shikarpur, Kehuniya, Bettiah, West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Mayank Mohan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mrs. Renu Kumari, learned APP for the State,
Mr. Mayank Mohan, learned counsel for the informant and
perused the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 317 of 2025, instituted for the offences
punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that daughter of
the informant has been done to death by her husband and in-
laws for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91688 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/3
petitioner is husband of the deceased and he was not present at
the time of occurrence. It is next submitted that the allegation
levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature.
It is further submitted that the deceased has committed suicide
in the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner has never made
any demand of dowry from the deceased. The petitioner is in
custody since 14.05.2025 and has got no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of
bail to the petitioner and submitted that there is specific
allegation levelled against the husband of committing murder of
the deceased for non-fulfillment of dowry. It is next submitted
that the informant and other witnesses have supported the
prosecution case in paragraph nos. 5, 9 and 10 of the case diary.
It is further submitted that as per post-mortem report, cause of
death of the deceased has been opined as asphyxia as a result of
hanging. Further the petitioner is husband of the deceased and,
therefore, onus lies upon him to explain the cause of death.
Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91688 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/3
7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to
expedite the Trial. However, if the trial is not concluded within a
period of four months from the date of receipt/production, the
petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the
Court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…