Umesh Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59510 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2025 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Umesh Sahni Son of Nathuni Sahni @ Birju Sahni Resiedent Of Village - Ammadih, PS. - Bahadurpur, Dist. - Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 12-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. The allegation in the first information report is that the petitioner has done his wife to death on account of nonfulfillment of demand for dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that there was no demand of dowry and the said marriage was rather an ideal marriage, hence there is no question of causing death of the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand. It is further submitted that since the deceased herself was not satisfied with the marriage, she committed suicide by consuming poison. It has further been submitted that both the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59510 of 2025(4) dt.12-12-2025 2/2 inquest report and the post-mortem report indicate that there is no external injury on the body of the deceased. However, the cause of death has not been ascertained and the viscera was preserved for chemical report, but the same has not been received and charge sheet was submitted in absence thereof on 20.06.2025. The petitioner is in custody since 24.04.2025 with no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the state opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and is involved in causing her death,

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased who is primarily responsible for the welfare of his wife, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner for the present.

7. However, in case there is no substantial progress in the trial, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer at an appropriate stage.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) Prakash/- U