Patna High Court
Domi MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioners subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, Domi Mandal and Suren Mandal, sought bail in a dowry‑related case (Raniganj PS Case No. 568 of 2024) where they were accused of torturing and assaulting an informant for a demand of Rs 2 lakhs. The FIR, filed on 20‑12‑2024, alleged offences under several sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners argued that they have a clean antecedent, the FIR was false and fabricated, and there was an unexplained four‑month delay in filing the FIR, with no specific allegation against them. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The High Court, noting the lack of specific allegations and the petitioners’ clean record, granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC and further directions to cooperate with the trial and not tamper with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the serious dowry‑related charges.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of specific allegations justify bail.
- Whether the petitioners’ clean antecedent warrants release on bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 76, 85
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- dowry prohibition
- false FIR
- delay in investigation
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482 CrPC
- pre‑trial liberty
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3643 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-568 Year-2024 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
1. Domi Mandal Son of Lochan Mandal Resident of village- Kharhat, Ward no.
02, Ps- Raniganj, Dist- Araria
2. Suren Mandal @ Surendra Mandal Son of Badari Mandal Resident of
Village- Hariyabara, Ps- Araria, Dist- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanjita Kumari Wife Shishupal Kumar Resident of village- Kharhat, Ward
no. 02, Ps- Raniganj, Dist- Araria At Present Resident of village-
Chhatiauna, Ward no. 12, Ps- Raniganj, Dist- Araria
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Meena Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Ms. Meena Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Raniganj P.S. Case No. 568 of 2024, F.I.R.
dated 20.12.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 85, 76, 3(5) of the B.N.S. read with section 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. According to prosecution case, petitioners are
alleged to have tortured and assaulted the informant and ousted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3643 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
her from the matrimonial house due to non-fulfillment of
demand of Rs. 2 Lakhs as a dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not
committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It appears from the
FIR itself that the date of occurrence as alleged in the FIR is
07.08.2024 but the present FIR has been instituted on
20.12.2024 after delay of more than four months without giving
any plausible explanation for such delay. Petitioner no. 1 is
father-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is brother-in-law of the
informant. Apart from that there is no specific allegation against
the petitioners in the FIR rather there is general and omnibus
allegation that all the accused persons demanded the dowry
from the family members of the informant.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
petitioners having clean antecedent and the fact that there is no
specific allegation against the petitioners as alleged in the FIR,
let the petitioner, above named, in the event of their arrest or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3643 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/4
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) each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned C.J.M., Supaul, in connection with Raniganj P.S. Case
No. 568 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under
section 482(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other
following conditions:
i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3643 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
4/4
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…