Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Himanshu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner subject to stipulated conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Himanshu Kumar, was accused of offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 498A, 354B, 379 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4, stemming from alleged cruelty and dowry demands by his wife, Kumari Nidhi. He feared arrest and applied for anticipatory bail, offering to pay Rs 3000 per month as temporary relief to the complainant. The court noted that mediation had failed and considered the petitioner’s undertaking to provide maintenance. Relying on the provisions for anticipatory bail, the court allowed the application subject to a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and specific conditions regarding payment of maintenance. The order also stipulated that failure to pay for two consecutive months could lead to cancellation of bail.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite serious allegations under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act
  • Whether the petitioner’s undertaking to pay maintenance can justify the grant of bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • dowry harassment
  • IPC
  • maintenance
  • bail conditions
  • criminal law
  • marital dispute

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11848 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1002 Year-2024 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE
                                                     District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Himanshu Kumar S/O Ajit Kumar Singh R/O Fatehpur Buzurg, P.O and P.S-
                 Sahdei Buzurg, Distt.- Vaishali.

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Kumari Nidhi W/O Himanshu Kumar R/O Fatehpur Buzurg, P.O and P.S-
                 Sahdei Buzurg, Distt.- Vaishali. D/O Kamal Kishor Singh, R/O Village-
                 Khoksa Kalyan, P.O- Khoksa Buzurg, P.S- Desri, Dist.- Vaishali.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :     Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :     Ms. Pushpa Sinha, A.P.P.
                 For the O.P. No.2        :     Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   13-07-2026                  Earlier, vide order dated 27.04.2026, the matter was

                   referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patna High

                   Court, Patna, but as per the Mediator’s Report (flag ‘M’), the

                   mediation has failed.

                                2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered

                   for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498A,

                   354B, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the

                   Dowry Prohibition Act.

                                4. As per prosecution case, marriage of complainant

                   was solemnized with this petitioner in the year 2023. Thereafter,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11848 of 2026(4) dt.13-07-2026
                                            2/3




          it is alleged that complainant was subjected to torture and

          cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

                       5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while denying

          the allegations levelled against him, submits that petitioner, who

          is husband of the complainant, is ready to keep her with honour

          and safety. Besides this, petitioner is ready to give Rs. 3000/-per

          month to the complainant by way of temporary relief/solace,

          starting from this month, subject to any order passed in

          matrimonial, maintenance or connected proceedings.

                       6. In view of the aforesaid undertaking of learned

          counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready to give Rs.

          3000/- per month to the complainant by way of temporary

          relief/solace, starting from this month, this anticipatory bail

          application is allowed.

                       7. Let the above-named petitioner, in the event of

          arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, be

          enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten

          thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

          satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

          Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1002

          of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section

          482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita as well as on
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11848 of 2026(4) dt.13-07-2026
                                                          3/3




                        the following conditions:-

                                     ‘(1) Complainant would file an affidavit before the

                        court below and bring on record her savings bank account

                        number for its communication to the petitioner.

                                     (2)    Petitioner       would       deposit   the   aforesaid

                        maintenance amount per month in the savings bank account of

                        the complainant.

                                     (3) In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the

                        maintenance amount for two consecutive months, the court

                        below would be at liberty to cancel the bail-bond.

                                     (4) The aforementioned payment will be subject to

                        any order passed in matrimonial, maintenance or connected

                        proceedings. The present order, in no way, will preclude the

                        parties to resolve the issue otherwise.’



                                              (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.