Patna High Court
Surendra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail and allowed the appeal, granting bail to the appellants.
Summary
Surendra Yadav and his wife Punam Devi, the father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law of the complainant Kanchan Kumari, were charged under IPC Section 498A and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged dowry demand, caste‑based abuse and ousting the complainant from her matrimonial home. Their anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, prompting an appeal to the Patna High Court. The appellants argued that the allegations were vague, they had clean antecedents, and the family members were falsely implicated. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal. The High Court set aside the lower court’s order, allowed the appeal, and directed that the appellants be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of denying anticipatory bail to the appellants under the facts alleged.
- Whether the allegations under Section 498A IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are sufficiently specific to justify denial of bail.
- Whether family members (father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law) can be held liable for the alleged offences.
- Application of Section 482(2) CrPC in granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- SC/ST Act
- Section 498A
- bail
- family liability
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4947 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2023 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Supaul
======================================================
1. Surendra Yadav S/O Amaldat Yadav R/O Village- Balwa Punarwas (Ward
No.-1), P.S- Supaul, Distt.- Supaul.
2. Punam Devi W/O Surendra Yadav R/O Village- Balwa Punarwas (Ward No.-
1), P.S- Supaul, Distt.- Supaul.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kanchan Kumari W/O Saurabh Kumar Yadav, D/O Lakshmi Ram R/O
Village- Balwa Punarwas (Ward No.-1), P.S- Supaul, Distt.- Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Jha
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 22-04-2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
respondent no.2 despite receiving notice chooses not to appear
and contest the case.
3. The appellants have challenged the order dated
02.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st,
Supaul in connection with ABP No.763 of 2024 arising out of
SC/ST Complaint Case No.17 of 2023, instituted for the
offences under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4947 of 2024(4) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby their prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail has been rejected.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants are persons with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that she was married to
Saurav and the accused persons after marriage started
demanding Rs.3 Lacs and threatened that if demand is not met,
Saurav’s second marriage would be performed. Further, the
dispute was resolved by Supaul Mahila Police Station, but
accused persons again started demanding dowry. It is next
alleged that all accused persons on 18.02.2022 abused her by
taking caste name and ousted her from her matrimonial home
and Saurav was married to Sonali.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants next submits
that Saurav has also moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail
by filing Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.28 of 2025 and the said appeal was
taken up by a learned Coordinate Bench on 22.01.2025 and Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No.28 of 2025 was directed to be listed along with
the instant appeal, but then, only the instant appeal has been
listed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submits that the dispute is matrimonial and the appellants are
father in-law and mother in-law of the informant and in Cr.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4947 of 2024(4) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
Appeal (SJ) No.28 of 2025, the husband is appellant and the
yardstick for considering anticipatory bail application of the
instant appellants would be different from the yardstick to be
adopted in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.28 of 2025.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the
appellants, the Court takes up the instant appeal for hearing on
merits.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants being father in-law and
mother in-law have been falsely implicated in the instant case
by the informant. It is also submitted that allegation of demand
of dowry and torture is general and omnibus in nature. It is
further submitted that appellants are persons with clean
antecedent but then informant in the FIR alleges that earlier the
dispute was resolved by Supaul P.S. but then no dispute ever
was brought before the Supaul P.S. to the knowledge of the
appellants. It is further submitted that as far as allegation of
abuse by taking caste name is alleged, the same is general and
omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that even presuming
what has been alleged to be true without admitting with regard
to abuse, then the abuse was not hurled in public place rather the
informant alleges that she was ousted from her matrimonial
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4947 of 2024(4) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
home and was abused. It is also submitted that whenever any
dispute arises in between the husband and the wife, the entire
family members are implicated in a mechanical manner with
general and omnibus allegation. It is also submitted that this
perhaps explains why the respondent no.2 despite receiving
notice chooses not to appear and contest.
8. The learned Special P.P. opposes the appeal.
9. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, the
order dated 02.09.2024 is set-aside.
10. The appeal stands allowed.
11. The appellants, above-named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of eight weeks, are directed to be released on bail on
their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Supaul
in connection with ABP No.763 of 2024 arising out of SC/ST
Complaint Case No.17 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid
down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…