The court established criteria for bail refusal in dowry-related murder cases based on evidence of severe injury and cause of death.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

4 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Records have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 07.03.2025 and sentenced vide order dated 24.03.2025 in Sessions Trial No. 483 of 2021 arising out of Islampur P.S. Case No. 176 of 2020 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hilsa, Nalanda, for the offence punishable under Sections 304B of the Indian Penal Code . He has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under the said Section.

4. As per the prosecution story, one Umesh Prasad Kewat (PW-5), who is the father of the deceased has alleged that he had got his daughter, namely, Shweta Rani married to this appellant as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 15.06.2019. It is further alleged that her daughter lived happily at her matrimonial home but after few days of their marriage, all the accused persons, including the appellant started torturing her daughter mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of a four wheeler as dowry. On 31.03.2020, at about 12:30 P.M., the informant received information that her daughter has been killed due to dowry. On getting this information, the informant and his relatives reached the house of the appellant and saw that her daughter was lying dead. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that merely on the basis of being the husband of the deceased, the appellant has been convicted in this case. It is also stated that the appellant was not present at the time of the incident.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail. It is submitted that the Doctor (PW-1) has found ante- mortem injuries on the body of the deceased which is grievous in nature and he opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by throttling.

7. Having regard to the kind of multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased who was married only ten months back and then opinion of the doctor that the cause of death is due to asphyxia by throttling, we are of the opinion that the appellant would not deserve suspension of his sentence and release on bail. Prayer is refused

8. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only prima-facie and tentative in nature for purpose of consideration of prayer for suspension of sentence and bail of the appellant which would not cause prejudice to either of the parties.

9. List this appeal for hearing on its turn.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)