Patna High Court
Harsh Kumar @ Rohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to a bond, sureties, and specific conditions regarding monthly payments to the complainant.
Summary
The petitioner, Harsh Kumar (also known as Rohit Kumar), sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a dowry harassment case filed under multiple sections of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes (B.N.S.) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that Kumar demanded dowry, subjected his wife Pooja Kumari to cruelty, and eventually ousted her from their matrimonial home. Kumar denied all allegations, asserted a clean record, and offered to pay a temporary relief of Rs. 3,000 per month to the complainant. Mediation efforts failed, and the State opposed the bail application. The Court, considering the petitioner’s undertaking and the conditions proposed, granted anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to specific payment and compliance conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S. and related provisions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the applicable provisions of the B.N.S. and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the conditions imposed by the Court are lawful and sufficient to safeguard the interests of the complainant.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- marital dispute
- Section 482
- Section 438
- bail conditions
- mediation
- criminal law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2043 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Harsh Kumar @ Rohit Kumar Son of Late Sudhir Sharma R/o Ward no. 09,
Gola Chak, P.S. - Sitamarhi, Distt - Sitamarhi, Dist. - Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pooja Kumari D/o Mukhtar Sharma, W/o Harsh Kumar @ Rohit Kumar R/o
Ward no. 20, Pupri, P.S. - Pupri, Dist. - Sitamarhi.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Opposite
Party No. 2.
2. The petitioner, husband of the informant/Opposite
Party No. 2, apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 126(1), 351, 352
and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 31.01.2026, the matter was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2043 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
2/4
referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patna High
Court. From perusal of mediator’s report dated 01.04.2026 it is
apparent that despite best efforts, the dispute between the parties
could not be resolved through the process of mediation.
4. As per prosecution case, marriage of
informant/Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized with this
petitioner and thereafter, all the F.I.R. accused persons,
including this petitioner, started demanding dowry and due to
non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the informant/Opposite
Party No. 2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment and
subsequently, ousted her from her matrimonial house.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner denies the allegations made
in the F.I.R.. As a matter of fact, petitioner never committed
torture to informant/Opposite Party No. 2 or demanded any
dowry. However, the petitioner undertakes to give Rs. 3,000/-
(three thousand rupees) per month by way of temporary
relief/solace, starting from this month, to the
informant/Opposite Party No. 2. Petitioner claims clean
antecedents.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2043 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
3/4
appearing on behalf of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 have
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner.
7. In view of the undertaking of learned counsel for
the petitioner that petitioner is ready to give temporary
relief/solace of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand rupees) per month
to informant/Opposite Party No. 2, in the event of
arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let
the petitioner, above-named, 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 1 st Additional
Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in connection with Sitamarhi Mahila
P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024, subject to condition as laid down
under Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. with further following
conditions:
“(A.) Informant/Opposite Party No. 2 would file
an affidavit before the court below and bring on record
her saving bank account number for its communication
to the petitioner.
(B.) Petitioner would deposit the aforesaid
amount per month in the saving bank account of the
informant/Opposite Party No. 2 .
(C.) In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the
aforesaid amount for two consecutive months, the court
below would be at liberty to cancel the bail bond.
(D.) The aforementioned payment will be subject
to any order passed in matrimonial, maintenance or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2043 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
4/4
connected proceedings. The present order, in no way,
will preclude the parties to resolve the issue otherwise.”
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…