Patna High Court

Pappu Kumar Yadav @ Pappu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 12 March 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied because the court was not inclined to grant it given the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences.

Summary

The petitioner, Pappu Kumar Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a Mahila Police Station case alleging offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 354(B), and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner harassed and tortured the informant for dowry, assaulted her, and attempted rape. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, highlighted the informant's history of filing false cases, and pointed out that co‑accused had been granted regular bail and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the assault and attempted rape allegations. The Court, after considering the nature and gravity of the offences, declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding the allegations sufficient to warrant the petitioner’s continued custody. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be granted in view of the alleged offences of dowry harassment, assault, and attempted rape.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 354(B)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
dowry harassment
assault
attempted rape
Criminal Procedure Code
Indian Penal Code

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15469 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur
                 ======================================================
                 Pappu Kumar Yadav @ Pappu Kumar S/O Sudama Yadav Resident of
                 Village- Bhagwanpur Kedera, P.S.- Khawaspur (O.P.), Barhara, District-
                 Bhojpur
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-03-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                               2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Mahila P.S. Case No. 105 of 2024, for the offences under

                   Sections 341, 323, 307, 354(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code

                   and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

                               3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the accusation

                   against the accused persons named in the F.I.R., including the

                   petitioner, is of harassing and torturing the informant for dowry.

                   Further allegation of assault and making an attempt to commit

                   rape upon the informant were also made against the petitioner.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.                        He

                   further submitted that prior to this case informant has lodged
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15469 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
                                                       2/2




                     several false cases against her husband and his family. Learned

                     counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus

                     allegation has been made against the petitioner. Learned counsel

                     for the petitioner further submits that other co-accused has been

                     granted regular bail by this Bench vide order dated 15.09.2025

                     passed in Cr. Misc. No. 43713 of 2025. It has been submitted on

                     behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal

                     antecedent.

                                 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

                     opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Specific

                     allegation of assault and committing rape upon the informant is

                     against the petitioner.

                                  6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                     of the case, nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not

                     inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                  7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory

                     bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…