Patna High Court
Surendra RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, with conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
Petitioners Surendra Ray and Sumit Ray sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a dowry case where the complainant alleged they demanded Rs.10 lakh, tortured her, burnt her hand and evicted her from the matrimonial home. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated, noting prior cases against them were filed by disgruntled relatives and that no FIR was lodged for the alleged hand injury. They argued that granting anticipatory bail would not lead to absconding and would enable them to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offences listed under the B.N.S. and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court, after considering the submissions, ordered that the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act and other sections of the B.N.S.
- Whether the petitioners are likely to abscond, tamper with evidence or influence the investigation if bail is granted
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 85
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry prohibition
- false implication
- Criminal Procedure Code
- B.N.S.
- Section 438
- Section 482
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42637 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2026 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Surendra Ray Son of Naresh Ray Resident of Village- Gopalpur, P.S.-
Shivsagar, District- Rohtas, at present Mohalla- Gajradh, Gorakshini, P.S.-
Sasaram (T), District- Rohtas.
2. Sumit Ray @ Sumit Kumar Son of Surendra Ray Resident of Village-
Gopalpur, P.S.- Shivsagar, District- Rohtas, at present Mohalla- Gajradh,
Gorakshini, P.S.- Sasaram (T), District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rumjhum Kumari Wife of Amit Ray, D/o Late Vishwanath Pandey Resident
of Mohalla- Gajradh, Gorakshini, P.S.- Sasaram (T), District- Rohtas, at
present Village- Dhajahuha, P.S.- Chouri, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. (Dr.) Kumar Uday Pratap, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of O.P.
No. 2.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 85, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS as well as
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of four cases and petitioner no. 2
has antecedent of three cases but then the said cases were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42637 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/3
instituted by the daughters-in-law and villagers. It is next
submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that she was
married to Amit on 23.04.2024 and after marriage, for few days,
she was kept well in the house but thereafter the accused
persons started demanding dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs and for non-
fullfilment of the demands she was tortured and even they had
earlier burnt her hand for which she was treated and has
evidence regarding that. It is next alleged that the accused
persons including the petitioners ousted her from her
matrimonial home for non-fullfilment of dowry demand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case being
father-in-law and brother-in-law of the informant. It is further
submitted that though it is alleged that her hand was burnt but
no FIR came to be instituted. It is further submitted that
whenever any dispute arises in between the husband and the
wife, the entire family members are implicated in a mechanical
manner with general, omnibus and ornamental allegation. It is
also submitted that if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted
to the petitioners, the petitioners will not abscond rather will
cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42637 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
3/3
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, let the
petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where
the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Sasaram
Town Model P.S. Case No. 01 of 2026, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikram/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.