Patna High Court
Santosh Kumar Sharma @ Santosh SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the complaint’s lack of affidavit support and its vague, omnibus nature warranted the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Sharma, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint No. 829 of 2019 alleging offences under several IPC sections and the Dowry Prohibition Act, based on accusations of mental and physical cruelty for a dowry demand of Rs. 2.5 lakh. The petitioner contended that the complaint was vague, omnibus, filed five months after the alleged incident, and lacked an affidavit, citing the precedent set in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The State opposed the bail, while the complainant’s counsel argued the petitioner forced the complainant into destitution. The court observed that the complaint was not supported by an affidavit and the allegations were overly general, and consequently granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS. The parties were advised that they could settle their disputes before trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite serious allegations under IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the complaint is sufficiently specific and supported by an affidavit as required by law.
- Whether the delay in filing the complaint impacts the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 323, 341, 342, 379, 384, 498A, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- mental cruelty
- physical cruelty
- IPC offences
- complaint affidavit
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60758 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-829 Year-2019 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Sharma @ Santosh Sharma son of Lakhan Lal Sharma, R/o -
Palsha, Ward no. 01, Ps- Ajam Nager, Dist- katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Rachna Kumari wife of Santosh kumar Sharma @ santosh Sharma,
Daughter of Rohit lal Sharma R/o- kajra kamalpur, ward no. 1, ps- Raniganj,
Dist- Araria.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kundan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Khurshid Anwar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the complaint, is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.
829 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
120B, 323, 341, 342, 498A/384/379/506 of the Indian Penal
Code and cognizance was taken for the offence under Section
498A IPC r/w 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is to commit mental
and physical cruelty upon the complainant alongwith other co-
accused persons/family members due to non-fulfillment of demand
of cash of Rs. 2.5 lacs as dowry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60758 of 2024(4) dt.03-02-2026
2/3
submitted that allegation as raised through complaint petition qua
mental and physical cruelty is appearing very much general and
omnibus in nature against the petitioner and furthermore, the
present complaint was filed after about five months of the alleged
last occurrence, which took place on 11.09.2018, as the present
complaint was filed on 09.04.2019, without having any just
explanation and also the complaint in issue is not supported by
affidavit, which is contrary to the settled position of law as
available through Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [2015 (6) SCC 287]. Petitioner claimed clean
antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail.
6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
complainant/opposite party no. 2, while opposing the prayer of bail
submitted that the petitioner is the husband and he forced to live
complainant in destitution.
7. Let it be so, considering the fact that complaint not
appears to be supported by affidavit, where allegation qua
committing mental and physical cruelty also appears very much
general and omnibus in nature against petitioner, accordingly,
above-named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within
a period of four weeks from this order, is directed to be enlarged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60758 of 2024(4) dt.03-02-2026
3/3
on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand
only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned Additional District & Sessions Juge-IV,
Araria/concerned court in connection with Complaint Case No. 829
of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
8. Parties may settled their disputes and differences at any
point of time before learned trial court.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U T
Checking your session…