Patna High Court
Vinod KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case alleging dowry demand, sexual assault and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Dowry Prohibition Act. They contended that the informant’s allegations were false, that the marriage had been called off, and that no monetary transaction took place. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the factual matrix, including the informant’s relationship with a third party and the lack of evidence of a dowry demand, and held that arrest would amount to a travesty of justice. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, invoking Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order also imposed the usual conditions for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in view of the alleged dowry and sexual assault charges.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioners constitute a false case that would justify denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioners are likely to abscond, tamper with evidence or otherwise obstruct the investigation.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 123, 316(2), 318(4), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 482(2), 64
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- false complaint
- sexual assault
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18075 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-287 Year-2025 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna
======================================================
1. Vinod Kumar Son of Late Ram Narayan Prasad R/o 303 B, Jai Maheshwari
Complex, Exhibition Road, P.S. - Phulwari, Patna - 800001, Bihar.
2. Ankita Kedia W/o Ashit Jindal R/o Flat no. 11, Block - B, Ashoka Palace,
Exhibtion Road, P.S. - Gandhi Maidan, Dist. - Patna, Bihar.
3. Ashit Jindal Son of Deburam Agarwal R/o Flat no. 11, Block - B, Ashoka
Palace, Exhibtion Road, P.S. - Gandhi Maidan, Dist. - Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Saumya @ Nishi D/o Sudhir Kumar R/o House no. 28, Veer Shivaji Path,
P.S. - Sri Krishna Puri, Dist. - Patna, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Avanish Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP
Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv
Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Adv
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 64,
316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no.
2 is a woman and the informant alleges that she is an Executive
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18075 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
2/5
with Indigo Airlines, further Ashit and Ankita met her father and
a proposal was made for marrying informant with Shyam,
further the proposal was accepted and Ashit and Ankita
requested her father that accused persons would meet her,
further the marriage was finalised and engagement was
performed on 18-5-2025 and she started talking to Shyam,
further Vinod came to her house and asked her father to give Rs.
10 lakh for marriage expenses, accordingly her father gave Rs. 6
lakh, next alleges that marriage was fixed for 1-12-2025 and the
venue was selected, further on 15-8-2025, Ankita called her to
her house from where she took her to a restaurant on a car along
with Shyam and Ashit and they took lunch at Rare Window
restaurant, S.K. Puri at Patna, further alleges that she drank cold
drink and became senseless and thereafter they took her to
Shyam’s house where Shyam forcefully established physical
relation, further her father went to the house of Shyam, when
Vinod demanded a four-wheeler, on showing helplessness to the
demand, the marriage was broken.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner no. 1 is father
of Shyam, while petitioner no. 2 is own sister of Shyam and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18075 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
3/5
petitioner no. 3 is husband of petitioner no. 2. It is further
submitted that it is not in dispute that marriage of Shyam with
the informant was fixed, but then the proposal came from the
father of the informant and after talking to the informant, even
Shyam got ready for marrying her, as such engagement took
place on 18-5-2025 and thereafter the marriage was fixed for 1-
12-2025, but then the informant disclosed to Shyam that she is
in a relationship with one Nishant Yadav for the last 11 years
and is not interested in marrying the petitioner, but then she is
being forced by her father to marry him, the said disclosure
came as a shock to Shyam, as such he disclosed the said fact to
his sister (Ankita) and brother-in-law (Ashit) and they on
coming to know about what was disclosed by the informant to
Shyam, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 requested the informant to
accompany them for lunch at Rare Window Restaurant, it is
next submitted that they picked the informant and they had
lunch in the restaurant and even petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were of
the opinion that since informant is in a relationship from before,
as such the marriage should be cancelled. It is further submitted
that when the marriage got cancelled, it appears that father of
the informant became enraged and thereafter the present false
case came to be instituted. It is also submitted that it does not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18075 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
4/5
appear probable that own sister of Shyam along with her
husband would have made the informant drink cold drink and
when she became senseless, would have brought to the house of
Shyam allowing Shyam to ravish her. It is also submitted that
from perusal of the Annexures- 3 and 4 to the anticipatory bail
application, it would manifest that the same contains the chat in
between Shyam and the informant and from perusal of the
conversation, it would manifest that informant disclosed about
Nishant.
5. At this stage, the Court made a specific query from
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant that as
to whether informant is known to Nishant or not, on which it is
fairly submitted that Nishant and informant are known to each
other.
6. At this stage the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners thus submits that in the nature of the
allegations and the facts which have come to the fore, if
petitioners are sent to custody, it would amount to travesty of
justice as allegation of giving money has been alleged only with
a view to give seriousness to the case when no monetary
transaction in between the father of the informant and the
petitioner no. 1 ever took place. It is next submitted that if
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18075 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
5/5
privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, the
petitioners will not abscond rather will co-operate in the
investigation to prove their innocence.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with Sri
Krishna Puri P.S. Case No. 287 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…