Patna High Court
Abhishek Kumar @ BittuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, directing that the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a complaint case alleging offences under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, claiming the dispute was civil and the allegations false. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners received Rs. 24,46,041 on the pretext of marriage and later returned only part of the amount. The petitioners argued they had clean antecedents and no criminal liability. Mediation efforts failed, and the State opposed the bail. Considering the general nature of the accusation, lack of concrete evidence, and the petitioners' clean record, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing bail bonds of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a complaint alleging offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes a criminal offence or a civil dispute.
- Whether the provisions of Section 482(2) CrPC permit the grant of anticipatory bail in this case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 420 IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- civil dispute
- mediation
- bail bond
- CrPC Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2119 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1247 Year-2023 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE
District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Abhishek Kumar @ Bittu S/O Madan Kumar Rai Resident of Village-
Gopalganj Mohalla, Old RMS Station (Northside), Near Gaurkshani, Raiji
Shop, P.S- Sasaram (Town), Distt.- Rohtas.
2. Madan Kumar Rai S/O Ramjeetan Rai Resident of Village- Gopalganj
Mohalla, Old RMS Station (Northside), Near Gaurkshani, Raiji Shop, P.S-
Sasaram (Town), Distt.- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Birendra Singh @ Gorakh Singh S/O Late Ram Ashish Singh R/O Village-
Kasudhi, P.O- Nad, P.S- Darigaw, Distt.- Rohtas.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
For the Complainant : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a
complaint case registered for the offence punishable under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 31.01.2026, the matter was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2119 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patna High
Court. From perusal of mediator’s report dated 12.03.2026 it is
apparent that despite best efforts, the dispute between the parties
could not be resolved through the process of mediation.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the pretext
of marriage, in total, Rs. 24,46,041/- was given to these
petitioners in cash or spent on different occasions, however,
later on, they refused to solemnize marriage, returned only Rs.
10,50,000/- and refused to return rest of the amount of Rs.
13,96,041/-.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. It is true that the complainant
wanted to solemnize marriage of his daughter with Petitioner
No. 1, however, on some dispute, the same could not materialize
and in retaliation, this false and concocted case has been lodged.
There is no chit of paper on record to support he allegations
levelled in the complaint petition. Moreover, the dispute is
purely civil in nature and none of the acts, allegedly committed
by these petitioners, would give rise to any criminal liability.
Petitioners claim clean antecedents.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2119 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
3/3
the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation, materials
available on record and clean antecedents of the petitioners, the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is allowed.
8. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioners be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Sasaram,
Rohtas in connection with Complaint Case No. 1247 of 2023,
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…