Patna High Court
Sunit Kumar @ Sumit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that anticipatory bail could be granted to the petitioner, subject to a bond and specific conditions, despite the serious nature of the allegations.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunit Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a case where he was accused under IPC sections 323, 341, 498A, 504, 506 and 34, and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4 for allegedly demanding dowry and subjecting his wife to cruelty. Mediation efforts failed, and the prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co‑accused demanded dowry, leading to harassment of the informant, who is the petitioner's wife. The petitioner denied all allegations and offered to pay a temporary relief of Rs 3,000 per month to the informant if arrested, asserting a clean record. The State and the informant opposed the bail, but the Court, considering the petitioner’s undertaking, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties and specific conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. The bail order also required the petitioner to deposit the monthly amount into the informant’s savings account and allowed cancellation if payments were missed for two consecutive months.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite serious dowry‑related charges
- Whether the petitioner’s offer of monthly payment and clean antecedents justify bail
- Whether conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC may be imposed on the bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- mediation
- bail conditions
- CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58179 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Sunit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar S/O Lt. Bhola Mandal R/O Mohalla-
Santnagar, Barari, P.S.- Barari, Dist.- Bhagalpur, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Varsha Kumari W/O Sunit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar R/O Mohalla- Santnagar,
Barari, P.S.- Barari, Dist.- Bhagalpur, Bihar. ( At Present residing at
Mohalla- Maurya Nagar Colony, Salepur, P.S.- Habibpur, Dist.- Bhagalpur,
Bihar)
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Kamal Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Opposite
Party No. 2.
2. The petitioner, husband of the informant/Opposite
Party No. 2, apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 498A, 504, 506 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 01.09.2025, the matter was
referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patna High
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58179 of 2025(3) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
Court. From perusal of mediator’s report dated 22.12.2025 it is
apparent that despite best efforts, the dispute between the parties
could not be resolved through the process of mediation.
4. As per prosecution case, marriage of
informant/Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized with this
petitioner and thereafter, all the F.I.R. accused persons,
including this petitioner, started demanding dowry and due to
non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the informant/Opposite
Party No. 2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner denies the allegations made
in the F.I.R.. As a matter of fact, petitioner never committed
torture to informant/Opposite Party No. 2 or demanded any
dowry. However, the petitioner undertakes to give Rs. 3,000/-
(three thousand rupees) per month by way of temporary
relief/solace, starting from this month, to the
informant/Opposite Party No. 2. Petitioner claims clean
antecedents.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 have
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58179 of 2025(3) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
7. In view of the undertaking of learned counsel for
the petitioner that petitioner is ready to give temporary
relief/solace of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand rupees) per month
to informant/Opposite Party No. 2, in the event of
arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let
the petitioner, above-named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-I,
Bhagalpur in connection with Bhagalpur Mahila P.S. Case No.
44 of 2024, subject to condition as laid down under Section
482(2) of B.N.S.S. with further following conditions:
“(A.) Informant/Opposite Party No. 2 would file
an affidavit before the court below and bring on record
her saving bank account number for its communication
to the petitioner.
(B.) Petitioner would deposit the aforesaid
amount per month in the saving bank account of the
informant/Opposite Party No. 2 .
(C.) In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the
aforesaid amount for two consecutive months, the court
below would be at liberty to cancel the bail bond.
(D.) The aforementioned payment will be subject
to any order passed in matrimonial, maintenance or
connected proceedings. The present order, in no way,
will preclude the parties to resolve the issue otherwise.”
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…