Patna High Court
Pramod KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, granting it with specified conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Pramod Kumar sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a dowry harassment and assault case (Sections 498A and 323 IPC) filed as Complaint No. 965 of 2023. He contended that he was falsely implicated and that neither he nor his family demanded dowry. The State opposed the bail application. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the High Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000, two sureties, and a condition to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000 to the complainant, pending the outcome of any family‑court proceedings. The order also warned that non‑compliance could lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under Sections 498A and 323 IPC.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- IPC 498A
- assault
- maintenance order
- Section 438 CrPC
- Arnesh Kumar case
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53946 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-965 Year-2023 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
Rohtas
======================================================
Pramod Kumar S/O Late Ram Ashish Yadav Resident of village- Baraon,
P.S.- Nokha, District- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Basanti Devi D/O Antu Singh R/O Sasaram, Mohalla- Nuranganj, Baulia
Road, Jagdev Nagar, P.S.- Sasaram, Dist.- Rohtas
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Lovely Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajiv Nayan
======================================================
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 Complaint Case No. 965 of 2023 for the offence under
Sections 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
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 neither the
petitioner nor his family members demanded anything from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53946 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026
2/3
complainant.
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,
Rohtas at Sasaram/concerned Court below in connection with
Complaint Case No. 965 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. 6000/- 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.53946 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, Rohtas at Sasaram through
FAX for its compliance forthwith.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…