Patna High Court
Rajan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to a cash bond, two sureties, and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Summary
Petitioner Rajan Kumar sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged by Priyanka Kumari alleging that they were married in a temple and that she was later ousted from his home. The petitioner denies any marriage, contending that the complainant has taken contradictory positions in other proceedings, including a kidnapping complaint, a maintenance suit where she claimed a Hindu marriage, and a civil case challenging a maintenance order. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted the inconsistencies and the pending nature of related civil matters. Relying on Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a cash bond and two sureties, with standard conditions. The order allows the petitioner to avoid arrest for six weeks pending further proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the FIR alleging multiple offences under the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the contradictory statements of the complainant in various forums affect the merit of the anticipatory bail application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. ¾
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- marriage dispute
- kidnapping allegation
- maintenance order
- IPC offences
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- contradictory pleadings
- Section 438 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44731 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Saharsa
======================================================
Rajan Kumar Son of Deep Narayan Yadav R/o village - Naula, Ward No.- 4,
P.S.- Nauhatta, District - Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanka Kumari Daughter of Arvind Yadav Resident of Naula, Ward No.- 4,
P.S.- Nauhatta, District - Saharsa.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Khurshid Anwar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 31-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
498A, 504, 506 and 34 Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ D.P.
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
instant FIR has been instituted by the O.P. No.2 with an
allegation that she married the petitioner in a temple after
fleeing with him but when she went to the house of petitioner
after marriage she was ousted from her matrimonial home.
4. Learned counsel next submits that petitioner asserts
and submits that he is not married to the O.P No.2. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44731 of 2025(5) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
submitted that O.P. No.2 before different forum has taken a
different stand. It is submitted that prior to instituting the instant
FIR, the O.P. No.2 had instituted Complaint Case No.143/2024
in the Court of learned CJM, Saharsa, wherein she alleged that
she was kidnapped by the petitioner and thereafter her marriage
with the petitioner was performed. It is further submitted that a
maintenance case has also been filed by the O.P. No.2 in the
Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa being
Maintenance Case No.43/2024, wherein she has stated that her
marriage with the petitioner was performed in accordance with
Hindu rituals. It is further submitted that father of the petitioner
had also instituted Complaint Case No.136C/2024 in the Court
of learned CJM, Saharsa alleging that petitioner was kidnapped
by the family members of the O.P. No.2 herein. It is further
submitted that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Saharsa in Maintenance Case No.43/2024 has directed the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- per month to the O.P. No.2
towards maintenance but then the same has been assailed before
this Hon’ble Court in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.1120/2025,
which is pending adjudication. Learned counsel for the
petitioner thus submits that when the marriage itself is being
disputed by the petitioner and even the O.P. No.2 before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44731 of 2025(5) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
different forum has stated about her marriage in different
manner, whether it would be prudent for the Court to send to
petitioner to jail at this stage.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner but then the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 is not in a position to rebut
the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that O.P. No.2 before different forum has taken a
different stand with regard to her marriage with the petitioner.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
petitioner above-named, in the event of his 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) 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 Mahila P.S. Case
No.02/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…