Patna High Court
Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The petition for bail was denied.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Yadav, was arrested in connection with a dowry‑related murder case where his wife was allegedly killed after demanding Rs.4 lakh and a car. He applied for regular bail under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., claiming a clean antecedent and that the FIR is based on mere suspicion and not on an eyewitness account. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the statutory presumption against a husband in dowry‑death cases and noting that the body was recovered from the petitioner’s house with a post‑mortem indicating strangulation. The petitioner argued that no prior complaint of dowry harassment existed and that the allegations were omnibus. The Court, after considering the submissions, found the presumption and the seriousness of the allegations sufficient to deny bail, rejecting the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. in a dowry‑death case.
- Whether the presumption against the husband in dowry‑death cases applies despite the lack of an eyewitness.
- Whether the FIR and post‑mortem report provide a sufficient basis to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5), 80(2)
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- murder
- presumption against husband
- B.N.S.
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91980 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2025 Thana- LAUKARIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Yadav Son of Gabbar @ Krishna Yadav @
Gabbar yadav Resident of Village- Jarar Police Station -Laukariya, Dist- West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prerna Anand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody
since 02.06.2025 and the informant alleges that his daughter
was married to the petitioner on 26.02.2024 and after marriage
the accused persons including the petitioner were demanding
Rs.4 lakhs and a car. Further, on 27.05.2025, the informant came
to know that his daughter has been killed, accordingly, he
reached the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his
daughter lying and the accused persons had fled, thus, alleges
that accused persons including the petitioner killed his daughter.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91980 of 2025(2) dt.03-04-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire
allegation hinges around suspicion. It is next submitted that no
doubt, the allegation is of demand of dowry of Rs.4 lakhs and a
car but then the allegation is general and omnibus in nature. It is
also submitted that the daughter of the informant was married to
the petitioner on 26.02.2024 but then no case prior to the
occurrence came to be instituted either by the deceased or the
informant alleging that the victim was being tortured for non-
fulfillment of the dowry demand.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that
petitioner is the husband and the marriage of the deceased with
the petitioner was performed on 26.02.2024 and within one year
of marriage, the victim was killed, as such, in law even the
presumption is against the husband, more so, when the dead
body was recovered from the house of the petitioner. It is further
submitted that no doubt, the informant is not an eyewitness but
then the postmortem report records the cause of death as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91980 of 2025(2) dt.03-04-2026
3/3
asphyxia on account of strangulation.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to release the
petitioner on bail in connection with Laukariya P.S. Case No. 61
of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st
Class, Bagaha, West Champaran/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…