Patna High Court
Kalawati Devi @ Kalavati DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that the FIR does not disclose a specific dowry demand or sufficient prima facie case, and therefore the petitioners are entitled to bail.
Summary
The petitioners, four members of the same family, were implicated in a FIR for offences under Sections 420, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleged to have refused to marry the informant's daughter due to a dowry demand. The petitioners contended that no specific dowry demand was made, no cash transaction occurred, and the allegations were vague and false. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The High Court examined the FIR and found the dowry allegation to be general and omnibus, with no concrete evidence of a demand or transaction, and noted the petitioners' clean antecedents. Consequently, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the CrPC and ordered the release of the petitioners on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 each and two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR discloses a specific dowry demand sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the allegations under Sections 420, 406 and 34 IPC are prima facie established to deny bail.
- Whether bail can be granted under the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- bail
- dowry prohibition
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- false implication
- high court inherent powers
- Section 482 CrPC
- Indian Penal Code
- clean antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23637 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2024 Thana- LAUHIYANAGAR District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Kalawati Devi @ Kalavati Devi W/o- Sri Ashok Kumar Singh @ Arbind
Singh, Resident of Village-Daudpur, P.O and P.S-Kalpa District-Jehanabad.
2. Anjali Kumari D/o- Sri Ashok Kumar Singh @ Arbind Singh, Resident of
Village-Daudpur, P.O and P.S-Kalpa, District-Jehanabad.
3. Akash Kumar Singh @ Manish Singh, S/o- Sri Ashok Kumar Singh @
Arbind Singh, Resident of Village-Daudpur, P.O and P.S- Kalpa, District-
Jehanabad.
4. Abhimanyu Kumar @ Abhimanyu Singh, S/o- Sri Ashok Kumar Singh @
Arvind Singh, Resident of Village-Daudpur, P.O and P.S- Kalpa, District-
Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sudhir kumar Singh s/o Late Narayan Prasad Singh R/O-village-Lohianagar
P.S. Lohianagar, ward no-28, Dist-Begusarai.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the State.
2. The accused/petitioners apprehending their arrest in
connection with Lohianagar P.S. Case No. 55 of 2024 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per FIR, petitioners refused to marry the daughter
of the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23637 of 2025(5) dt.19-01-2026
2/3
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that due to certain personal reasons,
when the marriage of petitioner no. 4 could not solemnize with the
daughter of the informant, the present false implication was
raised, making allegation of dowry demand. It is submitted that
upon perusal of FIR, it nowhere appears that any demand of dowry
was actually made by petitioners and there is nothing on record
which may suggest that any cash transaction was done between
informant and petitioners. It is further submitted that even the
demand of allegation qua dowry is appearing very much general
and omnibus in nature and, moreover, the allegation as set out
through the FIR, nowhere suggest ingredients of the offences as
alleged punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal
Code on its face. While concluding argument, it is submitted that
petitioners are of clean antecedents.
5. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact as demand of dowry appears very much general
and omnibus against petitioners, where prima facie upon perusal
of FIR, it nowhere appears that any transaction was made between
informant and petitioners, who are of clean antecedents,
accordingly, all above named petitioners, in the event of their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23637 of 2025(5) dt.19-01-2026
3/3
arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court, within a period
of four weeks of the order, is directed to be released on bail
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Begusarai/concerned Court,
where the case is pending in connection with Lohianagar P.S. Case
No. 55 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U T
Checking your session…