Patna High Court
Md. Mumtaz AlamversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, as the allegations were vague and the informant had remarried.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Mumtaz Alam, was named in an FIR for offences under IPC sections 323, 341, 504, 498A and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging mental and physical cruelty for non‑payment of a Rs.2 lakh dowry demand. He applied for anticipatory bail, contending that the informant had already married another person while still married to him, making the complaint false and the allegations vague. The informant’s counsel admitted the remarriage without a legal dissolution of the existing marriage. The court observed that the allegations were general, omnibus and that the informant’s remarriage undermined the credibility of the complaint. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the alleged offences under IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act
- Whether the allegations of mental and physical cruelty are sufficiently specific to justify arrest
- Whether the informant’s remarriage affects the credibility of the dowry harassment complaint
- Applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Section 482 B.N.S.S. for granting anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 498A, 504
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- anticipatory bail
- mental cruelty
- physical cruelty
- IPC
- Section 498A
- criminal procedure
- false complaint
- marriage
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32571 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2014 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jamui
======================================================
Md. Mumtaz Alam Son of Md. Murtaza Resident of Village- Arha, P.S-
Chandradeep ,Dist- Jamui
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rokaya Khatun, Daughter of Md. Ekbal And Wife of Md. Mumtaz, Resident
of Paternal Village - Adsar, P.S. and District - Jamui, Presently remarried
with Aftab Alam, Resident of Village - Chamandiha, P.S. and District -
Nawada
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amar Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mohammed Arif,APP
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Jamui Mahila P.S.
Case No. 75 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 341, 504, 498A of the Indian Penal Code
and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is to commit
mental and physical cruelty upon the informant due to non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry as raised for a cash of Rs. Two
Lakhs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32571 of 2024(3) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that subsisting present marriage with
petitioner, the informant solemnized marriage with another
person with whom she was in love and to dilute her illegal act,
the present false case was lodged against the petitioner.
5. It is submitted that even the allegation of
demanding dowry and committing mental and physical cruelty
appears very much general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner
claimed clean antecedent.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State is present.
7. Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the informant, while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail
of the petitioner, fairly conceded that informant already
solemnized her marriage with another person without getting
her marriage dissolved with the petitioner in accordance with
law.
8. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as allegation qua mental and physical
cruelty appearing very much general and omnibus in nature,
coupled with the fact that informant solemnized marriage with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32571 of 2024(3) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
another person subsisting her marriage with this petitioner,
accordingly, above-named petitioner, in the event of his
arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from this
order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M.,
Jamui/concerned court in connection with Jamui Mahila P.S.
Case No. 75 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…