Patna High Court
Ranjit SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The bail application of the petitioner was denied.
Summary
Ranjit Singh, the petitioner, sought bail after being charged under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Dowry Prohibition Act for alleged dowry harassment, cruelty, and related offences. He contended that the allegations were false and that he could not afford interim maintenance for his wife, Raj Kumari Devi, the opposite party. The State and the wife opposed the bail, alleging that Singh, in collusion with his family, harassed and deprived her of livelihood, leaving her on the verge of starvation. The court noted the statutory and moral duty of a husband to maintain his wife and the seriousness of the accusations. Considering the gravity of the charges and the conduct alleged, the court rejected the petitioner's bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in view of the serious offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Dowry Prohibition Act
- Whether the petitioner’s inability to pay interim maintenance affects the bail decision
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 352, 35(b), 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- dowry harassment
- maintenance
- criminal law
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- domestic violence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2921 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2025 Thana- SURYAPURA District- Rohtas
======================================================
Ranjit Singh Son of Sita Ram Singh Resident of Village - Suryapura, Police
Station - Suryapura, District - Rohtas, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Raj Kumari Devi D/o Late Teju Singh R/o House no. 820, Gali no. 3, Sanjay
Enclav, Chacha Chowk, Faridabad, Haryana. At present C/o Rajesh
Kushwaha, Village - Sunder, P.S. - Dawath, Dist. - Rohtas.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Ms. Niharika Rani, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 22-06-2026 Pursuant to order of this Court, the matter was
referred to Mediation & Conciliation Center of Patna High
Court, but the dispute between the parties could not be resolved
through the process of mediation and as such, mediation failed
(Report kept at flag ‘M’).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State
and the opposite party no.2.
3. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for
the offences punishable under sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 352,
35(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while
denying the allegations, submits that the petitioner is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in this case because he happens
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2921 of 2026(5) dt.22-06-2026
2/2
to be husband of opposite party no.2. Petitioner is unable to pay
interim solace/maintenance to opposite party no.2.
5. Learned counsel for the State as well as opposite
party no.2 oppose the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner, being husband of
opposite party no.2, in connivance with his family members,
subjected her to harassment and cruelty for non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry and also ousted her to her parents’ house. It is
further submitted that she has no means of livelihood and is on
the verge of starvation.
6. Petitioner is husband of opposite party no.2. It is
both a statutory and moral duty of a husband to ensure that his
wife does not fall into destitution. The wife has a legal right to
maintain a standard of living comparable to what she would
have enjoyed while living with her husband. Petitioner cannot
refuse to provide maintenance to opposite party no.2.
7. Considering the nature and gravity of accusation
and conduct of the petitioner, his prayer for bail is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.