Patna High Court
Wajid AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to a bond and sureties, as the complaint is vague, unsupported, and the complainant has a history of false allegations.
Summary
The petitioner, Wajid Ansari, was named in a dowry‑related complaint alleging mental and physical cruelty, including an alleged attempt to burn the complainant with a cigarette, for a demand of Rs.50,000. The petitioner's counsel argued that the complaint was vague, lacked medical evidence, and was not supported by an affidavit, citing the complainant's history of filing false cases, including a previously compromised case in 2015. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, relying on the charges under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4. The court noted the general and omnibus nature of the allegations, the absence of corroborative material, and the complainant's alleged habit of false complaints, referencing Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, the court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under CrPC section 438(2) and BNSS section 482(2).
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint against the petitioner is sufficiently specific and supported to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under CrPC section 438(2) and BNSS section 482(2) despite the serious nature of the charges.
- Whether the complainant's alleged habit of filing false complaints affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- mental cruelty
- physical cruelty
- bail
- false complaint
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36594 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2018 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- West Champaran
======================================================
Wajid Ansari, S/o Narul Hoda Ansari, Resident of village - Mobin Tola
Vishun Purwa, P.S.- Lauria, Distt.- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Amrina Khatoon, W/o Wajid Ansari, D/o Late Maqbool Ansari R/o village -
Mobin Tola Vishun Purwa, P.S.- Lauria, Distt.- West Champaran
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Archana Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The accused/petitioner is named in the
complaint and apprehending his arrest in connection with
Complaint Case No. P-78 of 2018, 63C of 2018 in which
cognizance has been taken under Sections 147, 148, 149,
323, 324 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Allegation against petitioner, who is the
husband, is to commit mental and physical cruelty upon
complainant due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36594 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
2/3
raised for cash of Rs.50,000/-.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
petitioner that allegation qua demanding dowry in terms of
complaint petition of para-2 appearing very much general
and omnibus in nature. It is pointed out that the allegation
against petitioner is to burn the body of complainant with
cigarette but no medical report in support of allegation is
annexed with complaint petition. It is pointed out that the
complainant is under habit to lodge such false complaint
against petitioner and his family and so, she lodged Lauriya
P.S. Case No.118 of 2015, which was compromised but,
subsequently, the present false complaint case was lodged
without having any cogent material. It is further submitted
that complaint is not support by affidavit and therefore, the
same also appears in violation of legal principles as set out
through Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh
[(2015) 6 SCC 287].
5. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact as complainant is under habit to lodge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36594 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
3/3
such case against petitioner and his family members,
coupled with the fact that allegation of demanding dowry is
appearing very much general and omnibus against the
petitioner, accordingly, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within a
period of four weeks from today, is directed to be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Bettiah, West
Champaran in connection with Complaint Case No.P 78 of
2018, 63C of 2018 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in
short ‘CrPC’)/under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.