Patna High Court
Ranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting bail subject to bond, sureties and a maintenance condition.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a Mahila Police Station case alleging offences under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506/34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner participated in assault and torture of the victim to demand dowry. The petitioner contended his innocence and that he was falsely implicated. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the High Court granted anticipatory bail, imposing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and a condition to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000 to the complainant. The order also made the maintenance provision subject to 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 petitioner under Section 438 of the CrPC in light of the alleged offences under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the court may impose a maintenance payment condition as part of anticipatory bail.
- Application of the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar regarding arrest and bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 341, 498A, 504, 506/34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- Section 498A
- maintenance order
- CrPC Section 438
- Arnesh Kumar principle
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48520 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Samastipur
======================================================
Ranjan Kumar S/O Munish Thakur R/O Village- Ramnathpur Chhatauna, P.S-
Muffasil, Distt.- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanshu Kumari D/O Shiv Chandra Mishra R/O Village- Rajkhand, P.S-
Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Om Prakash Om
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 20-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No. 14 of 2023 registered for the offence
under Sections 498(A), 341, 323, 324, 504, 506/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section ¾ of the DP Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner 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
petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been
implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48520 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026
2/3
neither demanded dowry nor tortured OP No. 2.
5. Learned APP 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 petitioner, above named, in the event of his
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) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M,
Samastipur/concerned Court below in connection with Mahila
P.S. Case No. 14 of 2023 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 petitioner is directed to pay
a maintenance amount of Rs. 8000/- from the
month of February 2026 to the
complainant/informant. 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 complainant/informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48520 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026
3/3
every month before the 10th day of each 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 Principal Judge, Family Court
concerned, if any.
9. Needless to state that, if the petitioner fails 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 petitioner.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Samastipur through FAX
for its compliance forthwith.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…