Patna High Court
Alpana KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that there was no sufficient ground to cancel the anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.
Summary
The petitioner, Alpana Kumari, filed an application seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to her father‑in‑law, mother‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law in a criminal case under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The bail had been ordered on 19‑09‑2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner argued that the accused were implicated by an injury report and that no settlement had been reached, warranting revocation of bail. The accused contended that the bail was granted on substantial grounds, had not been misused, and that a separate quashing petition concerning the husband was pending. The High Court found no sufficient ground to cancel the anticipatory bail and, noting the interest of justice, disposed of the application while urging the parties to settle the matter in the related proceeding. Consequently, the bail remained in force.
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the accused in a Section 498A case can be cancelled on the basis of an injury report and the absence of a settlement.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- bail cancellation
- family dispute
- settlement
- injury report
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10109 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-402 Year-2023 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna
======================================================
Alpana Kumari Daughter Of Shri Shankar Prasad Resident Of Village- Bihari
Sao Lane, Po- Bankipur, Ps- Pirbahore, Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ravi Ray Son of Late Deoki Ray Resident Of Village- Krischan Colony,
Nirmala Apartment, Lodipur, Ps- Budha Colony, Dist- Patna
3. Rita Devi @ Rita Kumari Wife Of Ravi Ray Resident Of Village- Krischan
Colony, Nirmala Apartment, Lodipur, Ps- Budha Colony, Dist- Patna
4. Kumar Saurabh Son Of Ravi Ray Resident Of Village- Krischan Colony,
Nirmala Apartment, Lodipur, Ps- Budha Colony, Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Upadhayay, Advocate
Mr. Raju Prasad, Advocate
Ms. Tetara Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P
for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party
No. 2.
2. The present application has been filed for cancellation
of bail of the Opposite Parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who has been directed
to be released on anticipatory bail by order dated 19.09.2023 passed
in ABP No. 66918 of 2023 in connection with Budha Colony P.S.
Case No. 402 of 2023 by the learned court of Additional Sessions
Judge-XX, Patna which is registered for the offences punishable
under Section 498 (A) of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10109 of 2024(5) dt.22-01-2026
2/3
3. The present case is one under Section 498 A of the IPC
and the Opposite parties are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-
in-law of the petitioner who is the informant as also the victim.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for
cancellation of bail granted to the opposite parties on the ground that
despite there being allegations against them which is supported by
the injury report which has been brought on record by way of
supplementary affidavit (Annexure-P/3), the anticipatory bail has
been granted. The additional ground for pressing this application has
been taken by the learned counsel concerns a settlement between the
parties in the present proceeding. It appears from the earlier orders
that the matter has been adjourned on several dates but till date no
settlement has been arrived at.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.
2 to 4 strongly opposes the present application for cancellation on the
ground that the Opposite Parties are the in-laws of the petitioner and
the order having been passed on substantial reasons and
consideration and there is no reason for cancelling the anticipatory
bail granted to these Opposite Parties. It has also been submitted that
after the grant of anticipatory bail in the year 2023 these opposite
parties have never misused the privilege of such bail granted to them.
It has also been informed by both the parties that the husband of
the petitioner, who is primarily responsible for keeping his wife
with full dignity and honour, has already been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10109 of 2024(5) dt.22-01-2026
3/3
granted the privilege of anticipatory bail which has till date not been
challenged. However, a quashing application for challenging the
order of cognizance has been filed on behalf of the husband Mr.
Kumar Gaurav by Cr. Misc. No. 15094 of 2025 and by an order dated
24.03.2025 notices have been issued to the Opposite Party No.s 2
who is the petitioner herein on the very pretext that the husband was
desirous to settle the issue.
6. Finding no good ground for cancelling the anticipatory
bail already granted to these Opposite Parties who are father-in-law,
mother-in-law and brother-in-law, on merits this Court feels it
expedient in the interest of justice that the present application is
disposed of with an observation that both the parties would take steps
to settle the matter in Cr. Misc. No. 15094 of 2025 by resorting to
mentioning the matter upon urgency and both the parties do not have
any objection with regard to the same.
7. With such observations, the present application for
cancellation of bail of the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 is hereby
disposed of.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…