Ranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36321 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-534 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
                                                          Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Ranjan Kumar Son of Late Muneshwar Prasad Resident of Village - Manpur
                 Bazar, Yadav Toli, Police Station - Buniyadganj, District - Gaya.

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner
                                                     Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Sheetal Devi Wife of Ranjan Kumar Resident of Village - Manpur Bazar,
                 Yadav Toli, Police Station - Buniyadganj, District - Gaya. Presently residing
                 at Shastri Nagar, Goraiya Sthan, Police Station - Rampur, District - Gaya.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :       Mr. Manish Kumar 2, Adv.
                                                Mr. Aryan Singh, Adv.
                 For the State          :       Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP
                 For the O.P. No. 2     :       Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   03-06-2026                   Heard Mr. Manish Kumar 2, learned Advocate for the

                   petitioner, Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, learned Additional

                   Public Prosecution for the State and O.P. No. 2 is represented

                   through Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned Advocate through virtual

                   mode.

                                 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Gaya Complaint Case No. 534 of 2023, registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 379, 504/34 of

                   the I.P.C. read with Section ¾ of the D.P. Act, wherein

                   cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 323 of the I.P.C. read with Section ¾ of the D.P. Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36321 of 2026(2) dt.03-06-2026
                                            2/4




                       3. Allegedly, the marriage of the petitioner was

          solemnized with the O.P. No. 2 in the year 2003, however, since

          inception, the O.P. No. 2 was subjected to demand of dowry and

          torture through various ways. Notwithstanding the fact that the

          couple blessed with a child but the torture continued.

          Subsequently, in the year 2023, O.P. No. 2 was brutally

          assaulted and she was ousted from the matrimonial home after

          snatching all the valuables and belongings leading to institution

          of present complaint case.

                       4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that

          admittedly the marriage was solemnized in the year 2003 and

          they also blessed with a child from their wedlock but the present

          complaint came to be instituted after twenty years by making a

          frivolous allegation. The O.P. No. 2 also filed a maintenance

          case bearing no. 149 of 2024, however, later on, the brother and

          the O.P. No. 2 also filed two criminal cases. It is further

          contended that be that as it may, the learned jurisdictional court

          has taken cognizance only under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and

          Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.

                       5. On the other hand, learned Advocates for the State

          and the O.P. No. 2 vehemently opposed the bail application and

          submits that the case is not that much of simple as has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36321 of 2026(2) dt.03-06-2026
                                            3/4




          submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, rather the

          petitioner after twenty years of the marriage, has come with the

          contact of another lady and solemnized marriage with her and

          ousted the O.P. No. 2 by snatching all the belongings. The

          petitioner is a habitual criminal and also assaulted the brother of

          O.P. No. 2 and transferring all the property in the name of newly

          wedded wife.

                       6. Having considered the submissions advanced by

          the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note

          of the fact that two F.I.Rs. have been instituted by the brother as

          well as the O.P. No. 2; besides, the fact that the learned

          jurisdictional court has taken cognizance only under Section 323

          of the I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act and the O.P. No. 2 is

          also pursuing her remedy before the family court, this Court is

          inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the

          petitioner, let the petitioner above named be released on bail, in

          the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within

          a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a

          copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-

          (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First

          Class, Gaya in connection with Gaya Complaint Case No. 534
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36321 of 2026(2) dt.03-06-2026
                                                        4/4




                      of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of

                      the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the further

                      condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family

                      members of the petitioner.



                                                  (Harish Kumar, J)
sadique/-

U      T