Patna High Court
Seema Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 10 July, 2026
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54308 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2024 Thana- CHANDI District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Seema Devi Wife of Dhanesh Yadav R/o Village - Parsurampur, P.S.- Sinha,
District - Bhojpur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Yadav Son of Late Lal Mohar Yadav Resident of
Village - Bishunpura, P.S.- Chandi, District - Bhojpur, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagadeo Choubey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 10-07-2026
The present application has been filed by the
petitioner-informant under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), praying for
cancellation of the regular bail granted to the opposite party
no.2, namely, Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Yadav, the husband of
the deceased, by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara,
vide order dated 28.05.2025 passed in Bail Petition No.1904 of
2025, in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No.222 of 2024,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 238
and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
2/34
2. The prosecution case, as set out in the
written complaint of the informant dated 22.12.2024, is that the
informant had married her daughter, namely, Sandhya Devi, to
the opposite party no.2 on 14.05.2022 in accordance with Hindu
rites and customs, and in the said marriage she had given, by
way of gift/daan, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, gold and silver
ornaments, household articles including bed, almirah, fridge,
cooler and dressing table worth about Rs.3,00,000/-, three sets
of utensils worth about Rs.85,000/-, a Hero Splendor
motorcycle and a buffalo worth Rs.1,85,000/-. It is alleged that
despite the aforesaid, the deceased was being persistently
tortured and harassed by the opposite party no.2 and his family
members for non-fulfilment of the further demand of a golden
chain.
3. It is further alleged that on account of non-
fulfilment of the said demand, the opposite party no.2 and the
other named accused persons, in furtherance of their common
intention, killed the daughter of the informant and caused her
dead body to disappear. Upon receiving information from the
villagers, when the informant along with her family members
reached the matrimonial home of the deceased, the accused
persons were found to have locked the house and absconded,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
3/34
and four-five persons came there and threatened the informant
to compromise the matter, failing which they would be shot and
killed.
4. On the basis of the said written complaint,
Chandi P.S. Case No.222 of 2024 dated 22.12.2024 came to be
registered under Sections 80, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS. The
opposite party no.2 was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody on 15.01.2025. The charge-sheet has since been
submitted against the opposite party no.2. It is not in dispute
that the dead body of the deceased has not been recovered till
date.
5. The opposite party no.2 moved a regular bail
application before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara,
being Bail Petition No.1904 of 2025, which came to be allowed
vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2025. The impugned order
reads thus:-
"1. Petitioner seeks bail in relation with P.S.
Chandi FIR No. 222 of 2024 registered
under Sections 80, 238, 3(5) of BNS. The
petitioner is stated to be in custody since
15.01.2025.
2
. The case of the prosecution is that late
Sandhaya Devi was married to the
petitioner on 14.05.2022. It is alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
4/34
that Sandhaya Devi was harassed and
maltreated by her in-laws for the sake of
dowry. It is further alleged that petitioner
was demanding golden chain in dowry.
The daughter of informant namely
Sandhya Devi was reported to have been
killed by her in-laws and her dead body
was disposed off by the accused persons
in the month of December 2024.
3.. On behalf of the petitioner it is stated
that no bail petition of any nature has
been filed or is pending on behalf of the
petitioner either before this court or
before the Hon’ble High Court. It is
stated that the petitioner has clean
antecedents. It is argued that the
petitioner is innocent, has committed no
offence and has been falsely implicated
in this case. It is further argued that the
demand of dowry is not specific against
the petitioner. It is also argued that the
deceased was not living with the
petitioner at the relevant time. It is stated
that the investigation of this case against
the petitioner is complete and charge-
sheet has also been filed. It is stated that
co-accused Pati Ram Yadav was granted
bail by this court vide B.P. No. 715 of
2025.
4. Per contra, Ld. Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the bail plea of the
petitioner and has stated the petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
5/34
the husband of the deceased and he was
involved in the alleged murder, therefore,
he is not entitled for bail.
5. I have heard rival contentions and
perused the available case diary along
with charge-sheet. Record pertaining to
complaint case No.945(C) 2024 is also
summoned and perused. In said
complaint case late Sandhaya Devi got
her statement recorded on oath on
22.10.2024. According to her statement,
deceased was residing for last six months
in her paternal home. Perusal of the case
diary in the instant case does not suggest
about any Panchayati or compromise
having taken place between the
petitioner and late Sandhaya Devi during
the period from 20.10.2024 till
25.12.2024. Supervisory notice recorded
vide para-69 of the case diary suggests
that parties had compromised and
petitioner had taken deceased to her
matrimonial house, however the source
of such information is not disclosed in
the supervisory note. The date of such
compromise or Vidai is also not
mentioned. Deceased in her complaint
case also deposed that petitioner and his
family members caused beatings to her.
She was even kept confined in a room for
20 days and there was demand of buffalo
in dowry. The allegations so relating to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
6/34
dowry harassment are well founded
against the petitioner. At the same time it
is not clear under what circumstances
Sandhaya Devi expired, her dead body
was not recovered at any stage.
6. Under these circumstances the defense of
the petitioner seems having strength so
far the case under section 304-B
(Corresponding to Section 80 of BNS).
Petitioner is in custody since 15.01.2025
with clean antecedents. Charge-sheet
stands submitted against him.
Considerable time shall be consumed in
conclusion of trial against the petitioner.
No useful purpose will be served in
further detaining the accused in jail.
Considering all these aspects, petitioner
is admitted on bail on furnishing bail
bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one
surety in like amount. The petitioner
shall appear before Ld. Court Concerned
on each and every date of hearing and
shall not in any manner tamper with the
evidence or influence upon witnesses.
7. Opinion and views expressed
hereinabove shall not affect the merits of
the case during the trial.”
6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is
unsustainable in the eyes of law inasmuch as no cogent reason
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
7/34
has been assigned by the learned Court below for extending the
privilege of bail to the opposite party no.2, and the bail has been
granted on wholly flimsy grounds, completely ignoring the
gravity and seriousness of the allegation, namely, the dowry
death of a young bride within barely two and a half years of her
marriage.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
next submitted that the impugned order is internally self-
contradictory, inasmuch as the learned Court below has itself
recorded that the allegations of dowry harassment, including the
confinement of the deceased in a room for twenty days and the
demand of a buffalo in dowry, are well founded against the
opposite party no.2, and yet, in the same breath, has proceeded
to enlarge him on bail.
8. It is further submitted that the learned Court
below has, at the stage of bail itself, embarked upon an
impermissible appreciation of the defence material, inasmuch as
it summoned and perused the records of Complaint Case
No.945(C) of 2024, weighed the statement of the deceased
recorded therein against the supervisory note recorded vide
para-69 of the case diary, discarded the said supervisory note for
want of disclosure of its source, and upon such exercise
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
8/34
recorded a finding that the defence of the opposite party no.2 as
having strength, so far as the offence under Section 80 of the
BNS is concerned. It is submitted that, in doing so, the learned
Court below has also completely ignored the statutory
presumption of dowry death engrafted under Section 118 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section
113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872), further it is submitted that
this exercise is exclusively reserved for the trial.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
emphasized that the dead body of the deceased has not been
recovered till date, and the specific allegation against the
accused persons, including the opposite party no.2, is of having
caused the disappearance of the evidence of the offence, which
is the very subject matter of Section 238 of the BNS. It is
submitted that the non-recovery of the dead body, far from being
a circumstance in favour of the opposite party no.2, is directly
attributable to the accused persons themselves, and the learned
Court below has, in effect, permitted the opposite party no.2 to
reap the benefit of the very act of concealment alleged against
him, by treating the resultant uncertainty as to the circumstances
of the death as a circumstance lending strength to the defence.
10. It is next submitted that the conduct of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
9/34
accused persons in locking the house and absconding
immediately after the occurrence, coupled with the threats
extended to the informant to compromise the matter failing
which she would be shot and killed, demonstrates that there is
every likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and the
witnesses, who are mostly villagers and family members of the
deceased, being influenced, if the opposite party no.2 is allowed
to remain on bail. It is further submitted that the period of
custody was about four and a half months and the likely time to
be consumed in the conclusion of the trial could never constitute
cogent grounds for the grant of bail in a case of such gravity.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed heavy reliance upon the recent decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Lal Muni Devi v. State of Bihar
& Anr., Criminal Appeal No.1626 of 2026 (arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No.4402 of 2026), decided on 25.03.2026, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case of dowry death had set aside
the order the High Court enlarging the husband of the deceased
on bail and directed him to surrender. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court had observed as under:-
“12. The impugned order passed by the High
Court releasing the accused on bail is
wholly unsustainable. In a very serious
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
10/34
crime like dowry death, the High Court
should have been very careful in exercising
its discretion. The High Court in its
impugned Order has not discussed
anything. All that weighed with the High
Court was that the accused was in judicial
custody and only two witnesses had been
examined till the date the High Court
passed the impugned order.
13. The High Court lost sight of many
important aspects of the matter, more
particularly the post-mortem report
indicating number of injuries on the body
of the deceased, and the presumption of
commission of offence as provided under
Section 114 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023.
xxxx
15. Dowry deaths are indeed a profound
disgrace and a major social evil
representing a severe violation of human
rights and dignity. Despite the legal
prohibitions, this practice continues to
result in the unnatural deaths of
thousands of women, often through
murder or driven to suicide because of
greed-driven demands for money or
valuables from the groom’s family. Dowry
deaths are a severe blot on society.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the
accused would submit that the case is one
of suicide. According to the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
11/34
counsel, the deceased was not in a stable
state of mind and she is said to have
jumped from the sixth floor of a building.
This may be the defence of the accused.
17. Even suicidal deaths are punishable under
Section 80 of the BNS, 2023.
18. We are informed that the trial is in
progress. On this ground alone, the High
Court should have declined bail.”
(emphasis supplied).
12. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that in Lal Muni Devi (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has quoted with approval its earlier
pronouncement in Shabeen Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1051 of 2025, decided on
03.03.2025), expressing deep concern over the seemingly
mechanical approach adopted by the Courts in granting bail in
cases of dowry death, and observing that when a young bride
dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of
marriage, the Courts must reflect heightened vigilance, caution
and seriousness, and that a superficial application of bail
parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself
but also risks weakening public faith. In the same vein, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn strength from
the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shabeen Ahmed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
12/34
(supra), wherein the bail granted to the in-laws of a young
bride, who died an unnatural death within two years of her
marriage amidst escalating demands of dowry, was cancelled.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of
this Court to another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh @ Prince
& Anr., reported as 2025 INSC 1367 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC
2580, wherein the bail granted to the husband in a case of dowry
death was cancelled on the ground that the Court granting bail
had ignored the mandatory statutory presumption of dowry
death and towards the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ishwarji Nagaji Mali v. State of Gujarat & Anr.,
reported as (2022) 6 SCC 609, wherein the bail granted to a
husband accused of orchestrating the death of his wife was
cancelled on the ground that the Court granting bail had not
adverted to the material collected during the investigation.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State has supported the case of the petitioner and has
submitted that the opposite party no.2 is the husband of the
deceased and the learned Court below has itself found the
allegations of dowry harassment to be well founded against him,
further the dead body of the deceased has not been recovered,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
13/34
and in such circumstances the enlargement of the opposite party
no.2 on bail is likely to hamper the trial and may influence the
witnesses, who are mostly villagers.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 has supported the impugned order and has
submitted that the considerations governing the cancellation of
bail stand on a footing entirely different from those governing
its grant, and that bail once granted is not to be cancelled in a
routine, mechanical or punitive manner in the absence of misuse
of the liberty, breach of the conditions of bail, interference with
the investigation or the trial, threat to the witnesses, an attempt
to abscond, or the procurement of bail by fraud or
misrepresentation, none of which is even alleged, much less
established, in the present case.
15. It is next submitted that the present
application discloses no cogent supervening circumstance
arising after the grant of bail and is, in substance, a challenge to
the correctness of the original bail order upon the very same
material which was available before the learned Court below,
repackaged as an application for cancellation, which is
impermissible. It is submitted that the impugned order has been
passed in the exercise of judicial discretion, upon a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
14/34
consideration of the entire material, including the case diary and
the charge-sheet, and after recording reasons, and that the
opposite party no.2 has clean antecedents and the investigation
against him stands concluded with the submission of the charge-
sheet.
16. The learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 has further submitted that as per the sworn statement of the
deceased herself, recorded on 22.10.2024 in Complaint Case
No.945(C) of 2024, the deceased had been residing at her
paternal home for the preceding six months, and there is no
material in the case diary to suggest any Panchayati or
compromise whereafter she returned to her matrimonial home,
and therefore, the essential ingredient of the deceased having
been subjected to cruelty or harassment “soon before her death”
is, prima facie, doubtful. It is also submitted that the dead body
of the deceased has not been recovered and the very factum,
place and manner of her death remain uncertain, and these are
the considerations which have judicially weighed with the
learned Court below. In support of the aforesaid submissions,
reliance has been placed upon Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of
Haryana, reported as (1995) 1 SCC 349, Himanshu Sharma v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, reported as (2024) 4 SCC 222, and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
15/34Abdul Basit @ Raju & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary
& Anr., reported as (2014) 10 SCC 754.
17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and considered their submissions. I have also perused the
materials available on record, including the impugned order
dated 28.05.2025, by which the opposite party no.2 has been
granted bail.
18. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties
and on a conspectus of the materials on record, the moot
question that arises for consideration in the present application
is whether the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 is illegal,
perverse or founded upon irrelevant considerations while
ignoring the relevant material on record, so as to warrant its
annulment by this Court.
19. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it
would be apposite to notice the settled law governing the subject
matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of
Karnataka v. Sri Darshan etc., reported as 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1702, has exhaustively surveyed the entire jurisprudence on
the subject and has held as under:-
“18. Let us now examine the jurisprudence on when
bail may be annulled or cancelled. Two distinct
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
16/34categories have emerged in this regard:
(A) Annulment of Bail due to legal infirmity in the
order; and(B) Cancellation of Bail, i.e., revocation of bail
due to post-grant misconduct or supervening
circumstances.
(A). Annulment of bail orders
18.1. This refers to the appellate or revisional
power to set aside a bail order that is perverse,
unjustified, or passed in violation of settled legal
principles. It is concerned with defects existing at
the time the bail was granted, without reference to
subsequent conduct.
xxxx
22.4. An order that overlooks material evidence or
proceeds on an erroneous premise is perverse,
and such perversity forms a valid ground for
cancellation or setting aside of bail.”
20. The grounds on which bail already granted
may be cancelled were enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dolat Ram (supra), in the following
words:-
“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at
the initial stage and the cancellation of bail
so granted, have to be considered and dealt
with on different basis. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary
for an order directing the cancellation of the
bail, already granted. Generally speaking,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
17/34the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly
(illustrative and not exhaustive) are:
interference or attempt to interfere with the
due course of administration of justice or
evasion or attempt to evade the due course of
justice or abuse of the concession granted to
the accused in any manner. The satisfaction
of the court, on the basis of material placed
on the record of the possibility of the accused
absconding is yet another reason justifying
the cancellation of bail. However, bail once
granted should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering
whether any supervening circumstances have
rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial
to allow the accused to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during the
trial…”
21. The illustrative circumstances in which an
order granting bail may itself be set aside were summarized by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Yadav v.
State of U.P. & Anr., reported as (2022) 8 SCC 559, as under:-
“33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail
cannot be limited to the occurrence of
supervening circumstances. This Court certainly
has inherent powers and discretion to cancel the
bail of an accused even in the absence of
supervening circumstances. Following are the
illustrative circumstances where the bail can be
cancelled:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
18/3433.1 Where the court granting bail takes into
account irrelevant material of substantial
nature and not trivial nature while
ignoring relevant material on record.
33.2. Where the court granting bail overlooks
the influential position of the accused in
comparison to the victim of abuse or the
witnesses especially when there is prima
facie misuse of position and power over
the victim.
33.3. Where the past criminal record and
conduct of the accused is completely
ignored while granting bail.
33.4. Where bail has been granted on
untenable grounds.
33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found
in the order granting bail thereby causing
prejudice to justice.
33.6. Where the grant of bail was not
appropriate in the first place given the
very serious nature of the charges against
the accused which disentitles him for bail
and thus cannot be justified.
33.7. When the order granting bail is
apparently whimsical, capricious and
perverse in the facts of the given case.”
(emphasis supplied).
22. The distinction between the cancellation of
bail on account of supervening circumstances or misuse of
liberty, on the one hand, and the annulment or setting aside of an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
19/34
unjustified, illegal or perverse order granting bail, on the other,
was lucidly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported as (2014) 16
SCC 508, in the following words:-
“12. We have referred to certain principles to
be kept in mind while granting bail, as has
been laid down by this Court from time to
time. It is well settled in law that
cancellation of bail after it is granted
because the accused has misconducted
himself or of some supervening
circumstances warranting such
cancellation have occurred is in a different
compartment altogether than an order
granting bail which is unjustified, illegal
and perverse. If in a case, the relevant
factors which should have been taken
into consideration while dealing with the
application for bail and have not been
taken note of, or bail is founded on
irrelevant considerations, indisputably
the superior court can set aside the order
of such a grant of bail. Such a case
belongs to a different category and is in a
separate realm. While dealing with a case
of second nature, the Court does not
dwell upon the violation of conditions by
the accused or the supervening
circumstances that have happened
subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves
into the justifiability and the soundness of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
20/34the order passed by the Court.” (emphasis
supplied).
23. The position has been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajwar v. Waseem & Anr.,
reported as (2024) 10 SCC 768, in the following words:-
“27. It is equally well settled that bail once
granted, ought not to be cancelled in a
mechanical manner. However, an
unreasoned or perverse order of bail is
always open to interference by the superior
court. If there are serious allegations
against the accused, even if he has not
misused the bail granted to him, such an
order can be cancelled by the same Court
that has granted the bail. Bail can also be
revoked by a superior court if it transpires
that the courts below have ignored the
relevant material available on record or not
looked into the gravity of the offence or the
impact on the society resulting in such an
order. In P v. State of M.P. (2022) 15 SCC
211 decided by a three-Judge Bench of this
Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli,
J.)] has spelt out the considerations that
must weigh with the Court for interfering in
an order granting bail to an accused under
Section 439(1) CrPC in the following
words : (SCC p. 224, para 24)
“24. As can be discerned from the above
decisions, for cancelling bail once
granted, the court must consider
whether any supervening
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
21/34
circumstances have arisen or the
conduct of the accused post grant of
bail demonstrates that it is no longer
conducive to a fair trial to permit
him to retain his freedom by enjoying
the concession of bail during trial
[Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana,
(1995) 1 SCC 349 . To put it
differently, in ordinary
circumstances, this Court would be
loathe to interfere with an order
passed by the court below granting
bail but if such an order is found to
be illegal or perverse or premised on
material that is irrelevant, then such
an order is susceptible to scrutiny
and interference by the appellate
court.”
Considerations for setting aside bail
orders.
28. The considerations that weigh with the
appellate court for setting aside the bail
order on an application being moved by the
aggrieved party include any supervening
circumstances that may have occurred after
granting relief to the accused, the conduct of
the accused while on bail, any attempt on
the part of the accused to procrastinate,
resulting in delaying the trial, any instance
of threats being extended to the witnesses
while on bail, any attempt on the part of the
accused to tamper with the evidence in any
manner. We may add that this list is only
illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
22/34
court must be cautious that at the stage of
granting bail, only a prima facie case needs
to be examined and detailed reasons relating
to the merits of the case that may cause
prejudice to the accused, ought to be
avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail
order should reveal the factors that have
been considered by the Court for granting
relief to the accused.
29. In Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9
SCC 321, a three-Judge Bench of this Court,
has observed that the power to grant bail
under Section 439 CrPC is of wide
amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions
Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with
considerable discretion while deciding an
application for bail. But this discretion is
not unfettered. The order passed must
reflect due application of judicial mind
following well-established principles of law.
In ordinary course, courts would be slow to
interfere with the order where bail has been
granted by the courts below. But if it is
found that such an order is illegal or
perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant
material, the appellate court would be well
within its power to set aside and cancel the
bail. (Also refer: Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6
SCC 338; Narendra K. Amin v. State of
Gujarat (2008) 13 SCC 584.” (Emphasis
supplied).
24. From the aforequoted judgments, the
following propositions of law emerge. Firstly, the cancellation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
23/34
of bail already granted requires cogent and overwhelming
supervening circumstances, such as misuse of the liberty,
tampering with the evidence, intimidation of the witnesses or
evasion of justice, and cannot be founded upon a mere re-
appreciation of the material which was before the Court at the
time of the grant. Secondly, the annulment, by the superior
Court, of an order granting bail which is illegal, perverse,
founded upon irrelevant considerations or passed in ignorance
of the relevant material, is concerned with the defects existing at
the time of the grant itself, and may be exercised irrespective of
any subsequent misconduct on the part of the accused. It is upon
this twofold touchstone that the present application falls to be
examined.
25. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Lal Muni Devi (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, is most apposite to the facts of the present
case. In that case, as in the present one, the mother of a young
bride, who died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home
within a short span of her marriage amidst allegations of dowry
harassment, had approached the superior Court against the grant
of bail to the husband of the deceased, and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held the order granting bail to be wholly unsustainable,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
24/34
observing that all that had weighed with the Court granting bail
was the period of judicial custody and the stage of the trial and
the Court had lost sight of the material aspects of the matter
including the statutory presumption under the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, that even the defence of suicide, if
accepted, would not take the case out of the purview of Section
80 of the BNS, and that in a very serious crime like dowry
death, the Court must be very careful in exercising its discretion.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail
and directed the accused-husband to surrender.
26. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid
principles, the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this
Court, cannot be sustained. A perusal of the impugned order
reveals that the considerations which ultimately weighed with
the learned Court below in enlarging the opposite party no.2 on
bail are mainly that the defence of the opposite party no.2, in the
opinion of the Trial Court, seems having strength so far as the
offence under Section 80 of the BNS is concerned; the period of
custody of the opposite party no.2 with clean antecedents; the
fact that the charge-sheet stands submitted and that considerable
time shall be consumed in the conclusion of the trial. None of
these considerations, singly or cumulatively, could constitute
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
25/34
cogent grounds in law for the grant of bail in the facts of the
present case, involving a case of dowry death of the present
nature, and the manner in which they have been pressed into
service renders the impugned order perverse.
27. Insofar as the period of custody and the
likely duration of the trial are concerned, the custody of barely
four and a half months, in a case where a young bride has died
an unnatural death within about two and a half years of her
marriage, her dead body having not yet been recovered, and the
allegation of causing the disappearance of the evidence of the
offence levelled against the accused persons themselves, could
not, by any standard, constitute a ground for enlargement on
bail, and the mere prospect of a prolonged trial can never, by
itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence. The observations of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal Muni Devi (supra) that all
that weighed with the Court was the period of judicial custody
and the stage of the trial, and that the order was, on that account,
wholly unsustainable, apply on all fours to the impugned order.
The grant of bail on such grounds squarely falls within the
circumstances enumerated in paragraphs 33.4 and 33.6 of
Deepak Yadav (supra), namely, where bail has been granted on
untenable grounds and where the grant of bail was not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
26/34
appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the
charges.
28. Insofar as the finding of the learned Court
below that the defence of the opposite party no.2 seems to have
strength, is concerned, the impugned order is, in the first place,
internally self-contradictory. The learned Court below has itself
recorded that upon a perusal of the records of Complaint Case
No.945(C) of 2024, it appears that the deceased had deposed on
oath that the opposite party no.2 and his family members caused
beatings to her, that she was kept confined in a room for twenty
days, and that there was a demand of buffalo in dowry, and has,
in terms, held that the allegations so relating to dowry
harassment are well founded against the petitioner. An order
which records that the allegations of dowry harassment are well
founded against the accused, and simultaneously extends to the
very same accused the privilege of bail upon the premise that
his defence has strength, betrays a complete non-application of
judicial mind and is, on the face of it, whimsical and capricious
within the meaning of paragraph 33.7 of Deepak Yadav (supra).
29. In the second place, the exercise undertaken
by the learned Court below, of summoning the records of the
complaint case, weighing the sworn statement of the deceased
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
27/34
therein against the supervisory note recorded vide para-69 of the
case diary, discarding the supervisory note for want of
disclosure of its source and of the date of the alleged
compromise or Vidai, and thereupon returning a finding on the
probable strength of the defence to the charge under Section 80
of the BNS, amounts to a premature appreciation of the
evidence and a virtual adjudication, at the stage of bail, which is
quintessentially a matter for the trial. It is well settled that at the
stage of considering a prayer for bail, the Court is not to embark
upon a meticulous examination of the merits or conduct a mini-
trial, and the credibility and inter se weight of the material
collected during the investigation are matters reserved
exclusively for the trial. What the learned Court below has done
is precisely the converse, it has weighed and preferred one piece
of material over another, and founded the grant of bail upon the
outcome of that impermissible exercise.
30. In the third place, the learned Court below
has completely lost sight of the statutory presumption of dowry
death engrafted under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act, 1872). Once the learned Court below itself found
the allegations of dowry harassment to be well founded against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
28/34
the opposite party no.2, and it being not in dispute that the
deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances
within about two and a half years of her marriage, the statutory
presumption, prima facie, stood attracted, and the uncertainty as
to the circumstances of the death could not have been treated as
a circumstance lending strength to the defence. In Lal Muni
Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held
that the Court granting bail in a case of dowry death loses sight
of a most material aspect when it ignores the statutory
presumption under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and
has further held that even suicidal deaths are punishable under
Section 80 of the BNS, 2023, so that the plea of the accused that
the circumstances of the death are not established does not, at
the stage of bail, advance his case. The aforesaid view stands
reinforced by the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Yogendra Pal Singh (supra), wherein, while cancelling
the bail granted by the High Court to the husband of the
deceased in a case of dowry death, it has been held that once the
foundational facts constituting the offence of dowry death,
namely, the death of a woman otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of her marriage, coupled with
cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand of dowry
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
29/34
soon before her death, are prima facie made out, the statutory
presumption of dowry death must necessarily enter the
consideration of the Court dealing with a prayer for bail, and an
order granting bail in ignorance of the said presumption and of
the material evidence on record is perverse and liable to be
annulled, without any post-grant misconduct being required to
be demonstrated. In the present case, the learned Court below,
having itself returned a finding that the allegations of dowry
harassment are well founded against the opposite party no.2,
could not have granted bail without adverting to the said
presumption at all. The decision in Puran v. Rambilas reported
as (2001) 6 SCC 338 is also instructive, and not merely for the
proposition of law it lays down. That case, too, arose out of the
dowry death of a young bride within a year of her marriage, and
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while affirming the setting aside of
the order granting bail to the husband, held that the concept of
setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order granting
bail is totally different from the concept of cancelling bail on the
ground of misconduct of the accused or supervening
circumstances, and further observed that at the stage of granting
bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merits of the case is not to be undertaken.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
30/34
The exercise undertaken by the learned Court below in the
present case, of summoning the records of the complaint case,
weighing the material therein against the case diary and
returning a virtual finding on the strength of the defence, is
precisely the exercise deprecated therein.
31. In the fourth place, the treatment, by the
learned Court below, of the non-recovery of the dead body as a
circumstance creating doubt in the prosecution case is wholly
erroneous. The specific allegation in the FIR, registered, inter
alia, under Section 238 of the BNS, is that the accused persons
themselves caused the dead body of the deceased to disappear,
and the conduct attributed to them of locking the house and
absconding immediately after the occurrence lends prima facie
assurance to the said allegation. To permit the accused to derive
advantage, at the stage of bail, from the very disappearance of
evidence alleged to have been caused by him, is to put a
premium upon the alleged success of the concealment, and no
judicial order can countenance such a result. This circumstance,
far from allaying the caution of the learned Court below, ought
to have excited its vigilance. The view taken by this Court also
draws support from the decision in Ishwarji Nagaji Mali
(supra), wherein the accused-husband was alleged to have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
31/34
projected the death of his wife as an accidental one, and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, while cancelling the bail granted by the
High Court, held that the mere circumstance that the prosecution
case rests upon circumstantial evidence can never, by itself, be a
ground to release the accused on bail, where the material
collected during the investigation prima facie establishes the
chain of events. This Court is also mindful of the observations
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shabeen Ahmed (supra),
quoted with approval in Lal Muni Devi (supra), to the
following effect:-
“15. … It is unfortunate that in today’s society,
dowry deaths remain a grave social
concern, and in our opinion, the courts are
duty bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of
the circumstances under which bail is
granted in these cases. The social message
emanating from judicial orders in such
cases cannot be overstated: when a young
bride dies under suspicious circumstances
within barely two years of marriage, the
judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance
and seriousness. A superficial application
of bail parameters not only undermines the
gravity of the offence itself but also risks
weakening public faith in the judiciary’s
resolve to combat the menace of dowry
deaths…”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
32/34
32. The submissions advanced on behalf of the
opposite party no.2, founded upon Dolat Ram (supra),
Himanshu Sharma (supra) and Abdul Basit (supra), proceed
upon a misconception of the nature of the present application.
The present is not a case of cancellation of bail on the ground of
supervening misconduct, in which event alone the absence of
any violation of the conditions of bail or of any misuse of the
liberty would have assumed significance. The present
application invokes the power of this Court to annul an order
granting bail which is perverse, founded upon considerations
untenable in law and passed in ignorance of the relevant
material, and, as held in Puran (supra), Neeru Yadav (supra)
and Sri Darshan (supra), such power is distinct from the power
to cancel bail for misuse of liberty and does not require any
supervening circumstance to be shown.
33. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 is
perverse, internally self-contradictory, founded upon
considerations which are untenable and irrelevant in law,
namely, the period of custody and the likely duration of the trial,
and has been passed in ignorance of the relevant and weighty
material available on record, including the statutory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
33/34
presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023, and upon a premature appreciation of the
defence material, and suffers from complete non-application of
judicial mind. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be
sustained and the bail granted thereunder is liable to be
cancelled.
34. In the result, the present application is
allowed, the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, in Bail Petition
No.1904 of 2025, arising out of Chandi P.S. Case No.222 of
2024, enlarging the opposite party no.2, Ajay Yadav @ Ajay
Kumar Yadav, on bail, is set aside. The bail granted to the
opposite party no.2 vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 is
hereby cancelled and the bail bonds furnished by him also stand
cancelled. The opposite party no.2 shall surrender before the
learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today,
failing which the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, shall take
all necessary steps to secure his arrest.
35. The learned Trial Court is directed to
proceed with the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as
possible, without being influenced by any observation made
herein.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54308 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
34/34
36. It is made abundantly clear that the
observations made hereinabove are confined to the
consideration of the present application and shall not be
construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the
case, which shall be decided by the learned Trial Court
uninfluenced by the same
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE 23.06.2026 Uploading Date 13.07.2026 Transmission Date 13.07.2026
