Patna High Court
Tinku @ Satyendra Kumar @ Satendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Tinku, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging rape, dowry demands, and related offences under Sections 376, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that a co‑accused, Deepu Kumar, committed rape under a false pretext of marriage and that a large dowry was paid to his father, after which the marriage was not solemnized. The petitioner contended he had no specific involvement, was merely a co‑villager, and had clean antecedents, noting that similarly situated co‑accused had earlier been granted anticipatory bail. The State and the informant opposed the bail. Considering the lack of direct accusation against the petitioner, his clean record, and the general nature of the allegations, the court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, directing bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in the absence of a specific accusation against him.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 376, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- rape
- dowry
- false pretext of marriage
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- CrPC
- bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16686 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2025 Thana- NARHATT District- Nawada
======================================================
Tinku @ Satyendra Kumar @ Satendra Kumar S/O Rambalak Mahto
Resident of Village- Mahiyan, P.S.- Mohanpur, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX D/O late Rajendra Prasad R/O Vill.- Baniyan Bigha, P.S.- Narhat,
Dist.- Nawada.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate
Mr. Karamchand Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned
APP appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Arun Kumar
Arun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant/Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 504,
506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per prosecution case, in the year 2023,
informant met co-accused Deepu Kumar and thereafter, on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16686 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
false pretext of marriage, he committed rape upon her. It is
further alleged that in the year 2024, Rs. 10,00,000/- was given
to father of co-accused Deepu Kumar, namely Tulsi Mahto, as
dowry, however, subsequently, the accused persons refused to
solemnize marriage.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. From bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is
apparent that specific accusation of committing rape upon the
victim on the false pretext of marriage is against co-accused
Deepu Kumar. In the prosecution case, the informant has not
disclosed as to how the alleged money was given her and as per
F.I.R., the same was given to father of co-accused Deepu
Kumar. There is no specific accusation of overt act against this
petitioner and he has falsely been implicated in this case merely
because he happens to be co-villager of co-accused Deepu
Kumar. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused
persons have already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail
by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 20.02.2026 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 6154 of 2026. Petitioner claim clean antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16686 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation, claim based on
parity and clean antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioner 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 S.D.J.M., Nawada in
connection with Narhat P.S. Case No. 122 of 2025, subject to
condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…