Patna High Court
Pramod KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Pramod Kumar applied for anticipatory bail in a case (PS Case No.298 of 2023) involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498(A), 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He claimed he was falsely implicated by his wife, Pallavi Kumari, over a dowry dispute, asserting that she had assaulted him and was willing to restore conjugal rights. The wife’s counsel, however, alleged that the petitioner failed to fetch her back to the matrimonial home despite assurances, indicating a lack of intent to restore relations. The petitioner’s counsel could not rebut these allegations. Considering the submissions, the Court found no basis to grant anticipatory bail and rejected the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the allegations of dowry harassment and failure to restore conjugal rights.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 379, 498, 504, 506, A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- IPC offences
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- conjugal rights
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66979 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2023 Thana- NAWANAGAR District- Buxar
======================================================
Pramod Kumar, Son of Ramjeet Singh Resident of Village - Kirani, P.S.-
Nawanagar, District - Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pallavi Kumari, Wife of Pramod Kumar R/o village - Kirani, P.S.-
Nawanagar, District - Buxar, Present Address - D/o Late Sanjay Singh, R/o
Village - Nasariganj, P.S.- Nasariganj, District - Rohtas
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Dimpal Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar
Mr.Santosh Chandra Bhaskar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 02-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Nawanagar P. S. Case No.298 of 2023 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498(A), 504,
506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.
P. Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner, being husband, has been falsely implicated in the
instant case by the opposite party no.2, on which the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66979 of 2025(5) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
that for non-fulfilment of dowry demand the opposite party no.2
was assaulted, abused and ousted from the house. It is also
submitted that the case was taken up on 24.03.2026, when a
specific submission was made on behalf of the opposite party
no.2 that she is willing to restitute her conjugal rights, on which
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner based
on submission has submitted that even petitioner is willing to
keep the opposite party no.2 with honour and dignity and he will
go and fetch the opposite party no.2 back to her parental home
on 31.03.2026, but then, the petitioner despite giving assurance
to this Court did not come to fetch the opposite party no.2 back
to her matrimonial home, which amply demonstrates that
petitioner does not intend to restitute his conjugal rights and
only for the purposes of bail, a false submission was made.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is not in a position to rebut the said submission of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
5. At this stage, the learned A.P.P. as well as the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2
submits one can well imagine the plight of the opposite party
no.2 that how she is sustaining herself and the child in absence
of any support from the petitioner including financial support.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66979 of 2025(5) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite party no.2, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…