Patna High Court
Mantu Kumar Mishra @ Mantu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
Mantu Kumar Mishra, a government servant, was implicated in a dowry death case under Sections 85, 80, 92 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that he, along with other accused, demanded additional dowry and failed to provide medical care, leading to the death of his wife and unborn child. The petitioner contended that he was innocent, was on official duty at the time of death, and that the post‑mortem showed death due to uterine rupture, not neglect. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing clean antecedents and lack of involvement. The Court, after considering the general nature of the accusations and the petitioner’s clean record, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond and sureties, invoking Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite allegations under the B.N.S. and Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence or flee from prosecution.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedents and absence at the time of death justify bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5), 80, 85, 92
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- Section 85 B.N.S.
- Section 80 B.N.S.
- Section 92 B.N.S.
- Section 3(5) B.N.S.
- Section 3 Dowry Prohibition Act
- Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act
- Section 482(2) Criminal Procedure
- government servant
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3306 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2025 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Mantu Kumar Mishra @ Mantu Kumar S/O Manoj Kumar Mishra R/O
Village- Jhakhargarh, Ward No. 07, P.S.- Chhatapur, Distt.- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nr. Singh, Advocate
Ms. Nidhi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Harsh Kaushal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 13-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 80, 92
and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. It is a case of dowry death. The prosecution case, in
brief, is that marriage of daughter of informant was solemnized
with this petitioner on 11.02.2022. It is alleged that after
marriage, all the named accused persons, including this
petitioner, started demanding additional dowry and due to non-
fulfillment of demand of additional dowry, daughter of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3306 of 2026(3) dt.13-03-2026
2/3
informant was subjected to cruelty and harassment. It is further
alleged that on 19.09.2025, elder son of informant received a
call from this petitioner and it was informed that the victim was
admitted for delivery and the doctor has referred her outside the
village. When the son and wife of informant visited the hospital,
they found the dead body of the victim lying in a tempo and
none of the accused persons were present there. Informant
alleges that all the accused persons, including this petitioner, did
not provide appropriate medical treatment and thereafter, the
victim and her unborn child died.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in
this case only because he happens to be husband of the
deceased. There is absolutely no negligence on the part of
petitioner. The medical history confirms that the couple’s first
child was born in Susheela Hospital through C-section and
petitioner was fully taking care and providing adequate
treatment to his wife for the second delivery as well. From bare
perusal of the post mortem report it is apparent that the deceased
died due to haemorrhage resulting from a complete rupture of
uterus and not due to intentional neglect of this petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3306 of 2026(3) dt.13-03-2026
3/3
Moreover, petitioner is a government servant and at the time of
death of his wife, he was on his official duties at Basantpur and
was not present at the village where the death occurred.
Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation, materials
available on record and clean antecedents of the petitioner, the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.-I, Supaul in connection
with Chhatapur P.S. Case No. 289 of 2025, subject to condition
as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…