Patna High Court
Girija RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners subject to statutory conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, members of the Ray family, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a dowry harassment case (Complaint No.997(c)/2022) filed by Chhaya Kumari Rai, who alleged cruelty, demand for Rs.7 lakh dowry, denial of medical treatment and assault. The prosecution alleged offences under Section 498 of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners contended that the allegations were general, omnibus and unsupported, citing the complainant’s own affirmed statement that no dowry was demanded or they were not involved. The court observed that no specific case was made against the petitioners and that the matters could be addressed in the regular trial, thus finding merit in granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the court ordered anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, including bond, sureties, appearance, non‑tampering with evidence and non‑commission of further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the dowry harassment case under Sections 498 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioners are specific enough to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- anticipatory bail
- IPC 498
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
- family violence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29967 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-997 Year-2022 Thana- BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE District-
Buxar
======================================================
1. Girija Ray Son of Late Saraju Ray Resident of Village - Mango Dihari, P.S.-
Rajpur, District - Buxar.
2. Ashwani Ray @ Ashwani Kumar Rai Son of Girija Ray Resident of Village
- Mango Dihari, P.S.- Rajpur, District - Buxar.
3. Virat Ray Son of Girija Ray Resident of Village - Mango Dihari, P.S.-
Rajpur, District - Buxar.
4. Anita Ray Wife of Ashwani Ray Resident of Village - Mango Dihari, P.S.-
Rajpur, District - Buxar.
5. Rambha Ray Wife of Virat Ray Resident of Village - Mango Dihari, P.S.-
Rajpur, District - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chhaya Kumari Rai Wife of Vivek Rai @ Vinit Rai D/o Srikant Rai,
Resident of Village - Darahpur, P.S.- Buxar (Industrial), District - Buxar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 24-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Complaint Case No.997(c)/2022 dated
07.05.2017 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 498 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the
D.P. Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29967 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
2/4
3. According to prosecution case, the complainant,
Chhaya Kumari Rai, alleged that after her marriage with Vivek
Rai @ Vinit Rai on 07.05.2015, she was subjected to cruelty and
harassment by her husband and the accused persons, including
the present petitioners, for a dowry of Rs.7 lakh for purchasing a
four-wheeler. She further alleged that despite suffering from
severe abdominal pain, she was denied medical treatment, and
later it was found that she had gallbladder stones, the treatment
expenses being borne by her father. Although she returned to her
matrimonial home in March 2020, the alleged harassment
continued. Finally, on 14.01.2022, the accused persons allegedly
assaulted her and drove her out of the matrimonial home,
retaining her belongings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to
the complaint case, submits that there is general and omnibus
allegation of demand of dowry against these petitioners. It is the
case of the petitioner that they never demanded any dowry or
ever tortured the complainant and this fact is substantiated by
the statement recorded by the complainant by solemn
affirmation made in the course of enquiry in the said complaint
case.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29967 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
3/4
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that there is no specific case against these petitioners rather the
allegations are general and omnibus in nature and the complaint
wants to stay with the in-laws, which issues can well be
addressed in the duly substituted proceeding and can better be
appreciated by the anticipatory bail application filed by the
husband of the complainant. Accordingly, this Court is inclined
to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period
of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned S.D.J.M., Buxar, in connection with Complaint Case
No.997(c) / 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section
482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other
following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29967 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
4/4
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.