Patna High Court
Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court allowed anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to bail bonds, sureties and a monthly maintenance condition.
Summary
The petitioners, three Yadav relatives, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a dowry harassment case (Complaint No. 101 of 2022) filed under IPC sections 498A, 323, 379/34 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged they assaulted the complainant to demand dowry. The petitioners contended innocence and that they were falsely implicated. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, subject to a bail bond, sureties and a condition to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 8,000 to the complainant. The order also made the maintenance provision contingent on any pending family‑court proceedings and warned that non‑compliance could lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving alleged dowry harassment and assault.
- Whether the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar regarding unnecessary arrests apply to this case.
- Whether the court can impose a maintenance payment condition as part of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 379, 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- IPC 498A
- Section 438 CrPC
- maintenance order
- Arnesh Kumar principle
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41305 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - SHERGHATI
District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar Yadav Son of Mahadeo Yadav R/o Village -
Dibhka PS - Dumariya, Distt.- Gaya
2. Vijay Yadav Son of Mahadeo Yadav R/o Village - Dibhka PS - Dumariya,
Distt.- Gaya
3. Mahadev Yadav Son of Late Husaini Yadav R/o Village - Dibhka PS -
Dumariya, Distt.- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manju Devi Wife of Sanjit Kumar, D/o Late Indradev Yadav R/o Village -
Dibhka PS - Dumariya, Distt.- Gaya
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Asha Devi
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 19-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Complaint Case No. 101 of 2022 in which cogniznce has
been taken under Sections 498(A), 323, 379/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of the DP Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners and
others are accused of assaulting and torturing the victim for
demand of dowry.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41305 of 2025(5) dt.19-02-2026
2/3
been implicated in this case. He further submits that the
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are brothers-in-law (Bhaisur) and the
petitioner no. 3 is the father-in-law of the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
application of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submission of the parties and in
light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8
SCC 273, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is
allowed.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the concerned Court below
within four weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned S.D.J.M, Sherghati, Gaya/concerned Court below in
connection with Complaint Case No. 101 of 2022 subject to the
conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 / Section 482 of the BNSS and with further
condition that:
(I). The petitioners are directed to
pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 8000/-
from the month of February 2026 to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41305 of 2025(5) dt.19-02-2026
3/3
complainant/informant and the maintenance
for the month of February 2026 shall be
paid to the complainant/informant within ten
days from today and thereafter the
maintenance amount shall be paid to the
informant every month before the 10th day of
the month.
8. It is made clear that the order of maintenance
passed by this Court shall be subject to the outcome of the
maintenance case in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family
Court concerned, if any.
9. Needless to state that, if the petitioners fail to abide
by the terms and conditions, as stated hereinabove, the State
shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application before the
learned concerned Court below for cancellation of bail granted
to the petitioners.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Gaya through FAX for its
compliance forthwith.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…