Patna High Court
Manikant Kumar Singh @ Manikant SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Summary
Manikant Kumar Singh sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a complaint (No.827C/2024) alleging offences under IPC Section 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act, filed by his wife Priyanka Kumari. The complaint alleged dowry harassment, repeated assaults, denial of medical aid to a pregnant wife, death of a newborn, and that the petitioner had taken a second wife, Sonam. The court noted that the petitioner had been ordered to reconcile, but evidence including photographs showed an intimate relationship with the second woman and further complaints under multiple sections of the B.N.S. were filed. The petitioner denied any assault or second marriage, claiming the allegations were false. After considering the material evidence and the seriousness of the allegations, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for anticipatory bail in view of the allegations under IPC Section 498A, the Dowry Prohibition Act and other offences.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115, 126(2), 318(2), 3(5), 352, 82(1), 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- IPC 498A
- domestic violence
- second marriage
- death of newborn
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25507 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-827 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria
======================================================
Manikant Kumar Singh @ Manikant Singh S/O Rohit Kumar Singh Resident
of Village- Dainia, Ward No.- 06, Police Station- Sikty, District- Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanka Kumari W/O Manikant Kumar Singh R/O Village- Dainia, Ward
No.-06, P.S- Sikty, Distt.- Araria. At present- D/O Nityanand Bahaldar, R/O
Village- Diyari, Ward No.-09, P.S and Distt.- Araria.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
7 13-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Complaint Case No.827C of 2024 registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) of the Indian
Penal Code and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, lodged
by the complainant Priyanka Kumari.
3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant
alleged that she got married to the petitioner on 29.06.2020 but
was always tortured for dowry and the further allegation is that
on the fateful day, she was brutally assaulted and was not even
extended any medical assistance. She was assaulted even when
the lady was pregnant. Further, when the child arrived in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25507 of 2025(7) dt.13-02-2026
2/4
world, the infant was taken care of so shabbily that he died
within a fortnight. When she complained that her child was not
property taken care of resulting into death, was again assaulted.
A panchayati was held but on 30.08.2023, the allegation is that
after taking all her ornaments/clothes, she was thrown out of the
house. The further allegation is that the petitioner subsequently
married one Sonam. Left with no option, the present complaint
was filed by her.
4. In this case, on 07.05.2025, the opposite party was
noticed and considering the inclination shown by both of them,
they were allowed to remain present on 22.08.2025. Further, as
they wanted to continue with their relationship, the matter was
adjourned to 10.10.2025.
5. However, on 10.10.2025, when the couple
presented themselves, the intent of the husband was very clear.
He was not ready to continue with the marital relationship. Mr.
Pankaj Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the informant has
brought on record the facts of the case supporting the complaint
and two of the photographs which are part of the record (copies
served upon learned counsel for the petitioner) clearly show the
intimate relationship that this petitioner is having with the lady,
Sonam.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25507 of 2025(7) dt.13-02-2026
3/4
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in defence
submits that neither he has performed second marriage nor any
assault took place and/or any ill treatment led to the death of the
newly born child. On the contrary, the lady is in the habit of
leaving the home.
7. This Court earlier gave a long rope to the petitioner
under the impression that he will come to terms. However, it
seems that he wants to move further with his alleged second
wife. The allegation as per the supplementary affidavit shows
that even after this Court wanted them to continue together, the
second complaint has been filed by the O.P. No.2 vide
Complaint Case No. 1879C of 2025 under section 126(2),
115, 352, 85, 109, 318(2), 82(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. alleging
that he again resorted to the assault when she went with him.
This despite the fact that the lady went to his house under the
order of this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
complaint case are completely false and the photographs that
have been attached with the counter affidavit showing the
injuries have been inflicted by the lady herself only to implicate
him.
9. Whatever alibi the learned counsel for the
petitioner wants to put forward, this Court has recorded all the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25507 of 2025(7) dt.13-02-2026
4/4
facts of the case as also the development that took place in
between. The petitioner despite taking the lady to his home
again assaulted her for which a complaint case has been filed.
This Court has also seen the photographs of the petitioner with
other lady. Allegation of ill treatment as also not extending any
medical assistance to the newly born is/are there.
10. This takes the Court to only one conclusion. The
petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The anticipatory bail
application is rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…