Patna High Court
Abhinandan Kumar @ Abhinandan MahatoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, directing him to surrender within eight weeks on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Abhinandan Kumar Mahato, was charged under IPC sections 498A, 494, 34 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4 for alleged dowry demand, cruelty and a second marriage. He contended that the allegations were false, that he had no criminal antecedents and that the wife had left the matrimonial home of her own accord. The State opposed bail, while the petitioner had not previously applied for anticipatory or regular bail. The Court examined the nature of the allegations, the absence of prior criminal record and the lack of documentary evidence of a second marriage. Finding no compelling reason to deny bail, the Court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon surrender, subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and specific conditions. The order also empowered the lower court to cancel bail if any concealed antecedents or false statements were discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged dowry demand, cruelty and a purported second marriage under IPC 498A, 494, 34 and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 494, 498A
Subjects
- bail
- dowry prohibition
- cruelty
- IPC 498A
- criminal procedure
- matrimonial dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20272 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2024 Thana- Manikpur District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Abhinandan Kumar @ Abhinandan Mahato, Son of Raghunandan Mahto,
Resident of Village- Mustafapur, P.S.- Manikpur, District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rekha Kumari @ Sulekha, D/o Bharat Mahto, Resident of Village- Kolipur,
P.S.- Manikpur, District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP
Opposite Party No.2 : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. Despite appearance being entered on behalf of the
Respondent No.2/Informant, nobody is present on her behalf.
3. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest,
in connection with Manikpur P.S. Case No.43 of 2024, dated-
01.06.2024, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 498(A), 494, 34 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 3 /
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. As per allegation, after the marriage, the Informant
joined the matrimonial home of the Petitioner/husband, but soon
thereafter, additional demand of dowry started on the part of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20272 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
2/4
Petitioner and his family members, and ultimately, the
Informant has been ousted from the matrimonial home and her
husband has entered into second marriage, with one Arti Kumari
at the instigation of the mother-in-law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that there is no truth in the allegation of
any demand of dowry or cruelty or in the allegation of second
marriage of the Petitioner with one Arti Kumari. As a matter of
fact, the Informant/Wife has suspicion that the Petitioner has
illicit relationship with one Arti Kumari, and hence, matrimonial
discord has developed and she left the matrimonial home. He
further submits that there is also one minor son born out of the
wedlock and he the Petitioner is very much willing to keep his
wife and his child along with him in his matrimonial home. He
also submits that there is no documentary or other proof in
support of the allegation of second marriage of the Petitioner
with Aarti Kumari.
6. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier
either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.
7. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20272 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
3/4
bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
8. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.
9. Considering the nature of allegation and material
on record, this petition is allowed, directing the petitioner,
above-named, to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest
or surrender before the court below within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this
order, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /-
(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned concerned Court below, in connection
with Manikpur P.S. Case No.43 of 2024, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S.,
2023 and on the following conditions:
(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents, learned
court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after
hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the
same.
(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20272 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
4/4
learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.