Patna High Court
MISHRILAL SAHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the petitioners have a clean antecedent and the complaint appears to be a false implication, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, Mishrilal Sah and his three sons, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. They alleged that the complaint was false and stemmed from a matrimonial dispute involving the informant, his wife Sanju Devi, and a prior 498A case. The petitioners claimed they have clean antecedents and that the informant is using the extortion charge to coerce Sanju Devi. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, arguing the FIR disclosed a prima facie case. The court, after considering the submissions, ordered that the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC in the pending case under Section 384 IPC.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a prima facie case justifying arrest.
- Whether the petitioners' clean antecedent and claim of false implication warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 384, 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 384 IPC
- Section 498A IPC
- false implication
- marital dispute
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.537 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1677 Year-2017 Thana- SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. MISHRILAL SAH Son of Narayan Sah Resident of Village- Laruaari, P.S.-
Parihar, District- Sitamarhi.
2. Shyam Kumar Son of Mishrilal Sah Resident of Village- Laruaari, P.S.-
Parihar, District- Sitamarhi.
3. Pramod Kumar Son of Mishrilal Sah Resident of Village- Laruaari, P.S.-
Parihar, District- Sitamarhi.
4. Pappu Kumar Son of Mishrilal Sah Resident of Village- Laruaari, P.S.-
Parihar, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sankar Sah Son of Shanker Sah Resident of Village- Bariyarpur, P.S.-
Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. BISHWESHWAR RAM
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
20 19-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the complainant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 384 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that he was married to Sanju Devi in the year 2003, but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.537 of 2022(20) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
Sanju Devi after 15-20 days of marriage left for her parental
home and started residing there, further 10 years thereafter
Sanju Devi instituted Parihar P.S. Case No.239 of 2013 under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the informant
and others, it is next alleged that the accused persons forcibly
captured his house and Sanju gave all the jewellery of his father
to Mishrilal and complainant was ousted from his house, next
alleges that Sanju with help of criminals may kill him, hence
complainant filed Divorce Case No.51/2017 while Sanju filed
Maintenance Case No.60/2017, next alleges that he on
06.10.2017 went to his village and protested about the wrong
deeds of the accused persons when he was assaulted and Sanju
threatened to withdraw the Divorce case or he will be killed and
also said that she will die in his house and his entire family
members would be implicated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the complainant. It is next submitted that petitioner no.1 is
father-in-law of complainant and petitioner no.2, 3 and 4 are
sons of petitioner no.1. It is also submitted that from perusal of
the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on
account of matrimonial dispute, cases have been filed by both
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.537 of 2022(20) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
the sides. It is also submitted that complainant is on bail in the
case instituted by Sanju under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code and other Sections. It is next submitted that in order to
coerce Sanju Devi into submission, the present false case came
to be instituted.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, 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.5000/- (Rupees Five 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 Complaint Case No.C-1/1677/2017, 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…