Patna High Court
Birendra Rai @ Birendar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted subject to a bond, sureties, and conditions including a monthly payment to the complainant, under the court’s inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Birendra Rai, sought anticipatory bail after being charged under several sections of the B.N.S. for alleged dowry harassment of his wife, Priyanka Kumari. The dispute was referred to mediation, which failed to resolve the matter. The petitioner denied the allegations and offered to pay Rs.5,000 per month to the informant as temporary relief, seeking bail. The State and the informant opposed the bail application. The court, considering the petitioner’s undertaking and the need to prevent further harassment, granted anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding monthly payments and possible cancellation. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., allowing the court to exercise its inherent powers.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged dowry harassment and related offences under the B.N.S.
- Whether the court may impose conditions such as a monthly monetary payment to the complainant as a term of bail.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. empowers the court to grant such bail with the stipulated conditions.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- mediation
- bail conditions
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- marital dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59306 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-382 Year-2025 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Birendra Rai @ Birendar Ray S/O Late Baleshwar Rai R/O Village- Noor
Mohammad Chak, P.S- Mahua, Dist.- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanka Kumari D/O Ajay Kumar Singh, W/O Birendra Rai R/O Village-
Rajapakar, P.S- Rajapakar, Distt.- Vaishali.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Sudha, 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 126(2), 351, 352, 115(2), 85,
82 and 3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. Earlier, vide order dated 01.09.2025, the matter was
referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patna High
Court. From perusal of mediator’s report dated 12.12.2025 it is
apparent that despite best efforts, the dispute between the parties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59306 of 2025(3) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
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. 5,000/-
(five 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.
7. In view of the undertaking of learned counsel for
the petitioner that petitioner is ready to give temporary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59306 of 2025(3) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
relief/solace of Rs. 5,000/- (five 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 C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur in
connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 382 of 2025, 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…