Patna High Court
Anshu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to the stipulated conditions including monthly payment to the complainant and compliance with Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Anshu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a dowry harassment case (IPC Section 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3 & 4) filed by his wife, Sanju Kumari, who alleged continuous dowry demands and that she was thrown out of the house. The trial court had earlier ordered the couple to stay together, but the wife now claimed the husband was unwilling to reconcile and had possibly remarried. The petitioner offered to pay Rs 8,000 per month into the wife’s bank account, proposing this as a condition for his bail, and the court also directed welfare measures for the wife through the Block Development Officer. The High Court, after hearing counsel, granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, subject to the monthly payment, a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, and standard bail conditions such as appearance in court and non‑tampering with evidence. The order also stipulated that failure to make the monthly payment would allow the wife to seek cancellation of the bail bond.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a dowry harassment case.
- Whether the court can impose a condition of monthly monetary payment to the complainant as part of bail.
- Whether welfare directives for the complainant can be attached to the bail order.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- anticipatory bail
- Section 498A
- CrPC 438
- bail conditions
- welfare order
- marital dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61318 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1250 Year-2023 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
Anshu Kumar S/O Gulzari Yadav R/O Village- Chamandih, P.S.- Kurtha,
Distirct- Arwal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanju Kumari D/O Mithlesh Yadav R/O Vill.- Hiramanpur, P.o.- Amhara,
P.S.- Bihta, Dist.- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Ankita Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 Mr. Surendra Mishra, Advocate
Mrs. Rachna Shukla, Advocate
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 16-01-2026 Heard Ms. Ankita Kumari, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP and Mr.
Surendra Mishra representing the opposite party no. 2 duly
assisted by learned counsel, Mrs. Rachna Shukla.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Bihta P.S. Case No. 1250 of 2023 registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) of the Indian
Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
lodged on 16.12.2023 by the informant Sanju Kumari.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61318 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
2/5
that she was married to the petitioner but was always tortured
for dowry. As the parents were unable to pay the amount, the
harassment continued and finally, she was thrown out of the
house in the year 2022. This led to the FIR.
4. Earlier, notice was issued to the informant who has
appeared and thereafter, an order passed on 17.12.2025 allowing
the couple to stay together for some time and come to the Court
on 16.01.2026.
5. Today, on call, when the matter was taken up, it
was informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that he went
to the lady’s house on 19.12.2025 but had to return without the
wife.
6. The wife is also present in the Court, has countered
it and submitted that he was not interested in taking her back
and to her knowledge, he has re-married.
7. Earlier, the Coordinate Bench and later, this Court
wanted the couple to stay together but the present scenario do
not allow this Court to further pursue the matter regarding their
union.
8. On instruction, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that till they come to terms and/or start living together,
he on his own shall be handing over Rs. 8,000/- per month to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61318 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
3/5
the lady which shall go in her Bank Account No.
446711610000130 of Bank of India situated in Bihta, Bihar by
tenth of every month and failure to do so, the lady shall be free
to take steps for cancellation of the bail bond.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the
other hand submits that her father is paralyzed, she is on the
mercy of the brothers and would like to do some work.
10. Upon query, it was informed that she has studied
upto class tenth but could not appear in the board examination.
11. In that background, the Block Development
Officer, Bihta, Patna is directed to look into the matter, visit the
home of the opposite party no. 2, provide her the certificates
that she is in need of and ensure that the lady is attached with
the Jeevika Group as per her wish and the talent.
12. The Block Development Officer, Arwal, Patna
shall be filing an affidavit through Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh,
learned APP by 06.02.2026 when the matter shall come under
the heading ‘To be Mentioned’.
13. Since the petitioner on his own has chosen to pay
Rs. 8,000/- per month to the lady till they come to an amicable
settlement, case is there, he shall be facing the trial and has no
criminal antecedent, in that background, this Court is inclined to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61318 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
4/5
extend him privilege of anticipatory bail.
14. It is made clear that this is subject to the payment
of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the lady by tenth of every month in
her bank account and failure to do so, the lady shall be free to
take steps for the cancellation of the bail bond.
15. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event
of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Danapur in
connection with Bihta P.S. Case No. 1250 of 2023 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Voter I.D. Card/Pan Card/Driving
License) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61318 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
5/5
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
16. Before parting, this Court would like to put on
record its word of appreciation for Ms. Ankita Kumari, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surendra Mishra, learned
opposite party no. 2 for the strenuous effort that was taken by
them for taking the matter to its logical conclusion.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…