Patna High Court
Ratanjay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The anticipatory bail petition is rejected.
Summary
The petitioner, Ratanjay Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a 2017 case alleging offences under Sections 494, 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code based on an informant’s statement about a purported marriage and out‑of‑wedlock child. The prosecution’s case rests on the informant’s claim that the petitioner is the father of the child and that he had committed bigamy, cruelty and theft. The petitioner contended that he has no relationship with the informant, that the informant is extorting money, and that he is not the father, offering to undergo a DNA test, and that the complaint was filed with ulterior motive. He also highlighted his clean antecedents and argued that the earlier anticipatory bail petition (Cr. Misc. No. 5496 of 2025) was dismissed only due to a procedural delay of seven and a half years. The court examined the record, noted the prior rejection of the anticipatory bail petition, and found no sufficient ground to grant bail after such delay. Consequently, the court rejected the current anticipatory bail petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner despite a delay of over seven years and a prior dismissal of a similar petition.
- Whether the allegations under Sections 494, 498A and 379 IPC establish a prima facie case justifying arrest.
- Whether the petitioner's claim of extortion and lack of paternity, supported by a proposed DNA test, negates the basis for the charges.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379, 494, 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bigamy
- cruelty
- theft
- false complaint
- extortion
- delay in filing
- DNA test
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34080 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2017 Thana- MEHANDIGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Ratanjay Kumar S/o Nand Kishore @ Nand Kishor Kapad R/o Raghunathpur
Karahi, P.S. - Sahebpur Kamal, Dist. - Begusarai, Bihar. At present -
Deepnagar Road no. 4, Kaushal Jee Ke Makan, P.S. - Mehadiganj, Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Veena Devi W/o Harendra Singh, D/o Sachidanand Singh R/o Deep Nagar,
Road No. 4, Kaushal Jee ka Makan, P.S. - Mehandiganj, Dist. - Patna.
3. Harendra Singh H/o Veena Devi, S/o Nand Singh R/o Jaiber, P.S. -
Gaurichak, Dist. - Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shovendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 18-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Mehandiganj P.S. Case No. 67 of 2017, for
allegedly having committed offence under Sections 494, 498A
and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been
lodged on the basis of the fardbeyan given by the informant
before the Officer In-Charge, Mehandiganj Police Station to the
effect that he got married in the year 2009, as per Hindu rights
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34080 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
2/4
and rituals and out of wedlock, she gave birth to a son, who is
eight years old and she is six months pregnant. Fifteen days
prior to the occurrence, her husband fled away from the house
after taking away all the ornaments etc., who works as a teacher
in Dhanakdoh Middle School, Ghoswari, Mokama. When the
informant reached the school, she was informed that her
husband is not coming to the school and he had also married
another lady namely, Kanchan Kumari. On the basis of the
aforesaid written report of the informant, the present case has
been lodged.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has got no connection with the informant of
the present case and she is married to one another person,
namely, Harendra Singh. The present case has been lodged with
some ulterior motive. He further submits that charge-sheet has
been filed in the present case on 08.02.2019. The informant is a
married lady, who after leaving her husband was residing in the
tenanted house of Kaushal Kumar, where this petitioner was
running a coaching centre and when the petitioner came to know
about the Government job of the petitioner, she started extorting
money from the petitioner by blackmailing him. He further
submits that the petitioner is not the father of the children of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34080 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
3/4
informant and he is ready for DNA test. He submits that the
present case has been lodged with ulterior motive and with mala
fide intention, to extort money from the petitioner. The learned
counsel further submits that from the entire order-sheet of the
present case, which has been brought on record by way of
Annexure-4 to bail petition, it would transpire that no cause of
action arose for apprehension of arrest of the petitioner.
Therefore, he did not file bail petition previously. He had
approached this Hon’ble Court by filing anticipatory bail
petition bearing Cr. Misc. No. 5496 of 2025, which was
dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2025, on the ground that the
petitioner had approached this Court after a delay of almost 7
and a half year. The petitioner has got a clean antecedent.
5. The learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner has solemnized second marriage with another lady
and his bail petition was earlier rejected by a Hon’ble Single
Judge of this Court vide order dated 23.12.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 5496 of 2025.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and after
going through the record, it appears that the petitioner had
approached this court by filing anticipatory bail vide Cr. Misc.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34080 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
4/4
No. 5496 of 2025 and the same was rejected by a learned Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court on 23.12.2025. Considering the
above, the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner is rejected.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.