Patna High Court
Dr Pradeep Kumar Singh @ Pradeep SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, finding no sufficient ground to deny bail and imposing conditions under Section 438 CrPC.
Summary
Dr. Pradeep Kumar Singh sought anticipatory bail after a complaint was lodged under Sections 498A and 504 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging dowry demands and cruelty. The petitioner claimed the allegations were false, stemming from a strained marital relationship and that his wife suffered from a mental disorder. The State and the complainant opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the dowry demand and alleged abuse. The court examined the submissions, noting the lack of criminal antecedent and the petitioner’s willingness to comply with bail conditions. It granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged dowry harassment under Sections 498A, 504 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioner are frivolous or warrant denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing the investigation.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- Section 498A
- Section 504
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Criminal Procedure
- bail conditions
- marital dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54859 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-625 Year-2024 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
Rohtas
======================================================
Dr Pradeep Kumar Singh @ Pradeep Singh S/O Hare Ram Singh Resident Of
Solanki House, Bhuyian Dih Near Bank of Baroda, P.S.- Sitaramdera, Dist.-
East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)-831009
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dr Anupama Chauhan @ Kumari Anupama Chauhan D/O Arjun Kumar
Singh R/O Lane No. 10C, Kalavati Kunj, ekta chowk, P.S.- Sasaram, Dist.-
Rohtas, Bihar-831009
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amarshakti, Advcoate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Riya Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.1: Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP
For the Opposite party No.2: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 21-01-2026 Heard Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Amarshakti, learned counsel, for the petitioner,
Mr. Sanjay Verma, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay
Sinha, learned counsel, for the opposite party no.2 and Ms.
Pushpa Sinha, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Complaint Case No.625 of 2024 registered for the offences
under Sections 498(A) & 504 of the Indian Penal Code and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54859 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
2/5
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant has
alleged that during her marriage, her father had given
Rs.30,00,000/- in cash and gold jewelry worth Rs.15,00,000/- as
a gift, however, after few weeks of her marriage, her mother-in-
law and sister-in-law Priya Singh started mocking her for
getting less dowry and often pressurized the complainant for
bringing money from her parents. It is further alleged that the
petitioner, being the husband, also demanded Rs.50,00,000/-
from the complainant for building a hospital and on account of
non-fulfillment of the same, petitioner started abusing the
complainant.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the present case is a fallout of strained relationship between
the petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2. It has been
submitted that the petitioner happens to be a doctor and is a
child specialist and false and frivolous allegations of demand of
Rs.50,00,000/- for construction of hospital has been levelled
only to settle personal scores.
5. Learned Senior counsel pointed out that the
Petitioner, observing that his wife had not been behaving well,
had even visited a psychiatrist, who disclosed that his wife was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54859 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
3/5
suffering from a disease, namely, Morbid Jealousy. It has been
submitted that in fact this disease is genetic in the complainant's
family and even the brother-in-law of the petitioner, namely,
Abishek Anand, is getting treated for schizophrenia.
6. Learned Senior counsel has referred to the medical
prescription brought on record by way of Annexure P-2 and has
also drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure P-3
which are the bills and receipts which have been paid by the
petitioner even during the marriage, contrary to the claim of the
complainant. Learned Senior counsel has further taken this
Court to Annexure P-4, which is the informatory petition lodged
by the petitioner way back in 24.03.2023 apprehending false
implication by the complainant and ultimately because of her
attitude and looking at the fact that the relationship won't
survive, a Matrimonial Suit No. 955 of 2023 was also filed on
23.12.2023 in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Jamsedpur and notice was issued to the opposite party
no.2/complainant. It has been submitted by the learned Senior
counsel that it was on account of such notice being received by
the opposite party no.2 that the present complaint was filed with
false and frivolous allegations and in fact this was the reason for
the strained relationship, as the complainant was in the habit of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54859 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
4/5
picking fights on trivial issues. It has lastly been submitted that
the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
7. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail and have stated that the allegation of petitioner being
mentally unsound or suffering from some disease is all false and
concocted and it is the subject matter of inquiry. It has next been
submitted that there is specific allegation of demand of dowry
for construction of hospital and abuse against the petitioner. It
has also been stated that the petitioner has been ill-treating the
complainant and ultimately, after being subjected to cruelty, the
present case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was
lodged.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the
petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the
event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Complaint Case No.625 of 2024, subject to the conditions as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54859 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
5/5
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close
relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court
concerned.
(vi) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is
found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-
mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or
in the name of verification.
9. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
10. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…