Patna High Court
Akhalesh kumar @ Akhilesh Kumar @ Aklesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court ordered the District Court to reconsider the bail application after verifying the petitioner’s date of birth and the victim’s statement, and disposed of the present application.
Summary
The petitioner, Akhalesh Kumar, aged about 21, was charged under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for allegedly torturing the complainant over dowry demands. He claimed that his marriage in 2022 was voidable because he was a minor at the time, and therefore sought pre‑arrest bail, asserting he had not committed any offence. The State and the informant opposed bail, contending the petitioner had not disclosed his correct date of birth and that denial of the allegations could not be a ground for release. The High Court examined the material and found that the petitioner was indeed about 21 years old at the time of the bail application and that the victim was 23 years old at the time of the alleged marriage. Consequently, the Court directed the District Court to reconsider the bail application after verifying the petitioner’s date of birth and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and disposed of the present application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite allegations under the BNS and Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the alleged minority of the petitioner at the time of marriage renders the marriage voidable and affects bail eligibility.
- Whether the court must verify the petitioner’s date of birth and the victim’s statement before deciding on bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 3(5), 85
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- dowry harassment
- voidable marriage
- minority
- age verification
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68646 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-154 Year-2025 Thana- NARHATT District- Nawada
======================================================
Akhalesh kumar @ Akhilesh Kumar @ Aklesh Kumar, Male, aged about 21
years, S/o Fullu Prasad Yadav @ Fullu Yadav R/o vill- Ibrahimpur, P.S-
Narhat, District- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Puja Kumari D/o Munarika Yadav @ Mundrika Yadav R/o vill - Mandih,
P.s.- Rajauli, Distt.- Nawada
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hansraj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP
For the informant : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard Mr. Hansraj, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat learned APP
for the State and Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Narhat P.S. Case No. 154 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 85,3(5) of the BNS and
Section 3,4 of DP Act.
3. The allegation is of subjecting the complainant –
opposite party no.2 to various sorts of torture due to non-
fulfillment of the demand of the dowry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68646 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/3
petitioner gives information that as on date, the petitioner is
aged about 21 years. The alleged marriage of the petitioner with
daughter of the informant had taken place in the year 2022,
which indicates that the petitioner was a minor at the time of
alleged marriage. The petitioner’s counsel submits that marriage
became voidable, but this aspect has not been considered by the
learned District Court and the pre-arrest bail was rejected.
Petitioner having not committed any offence, seeks to be
released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, learned counsel, has
tendered his appearance on behalf of the informant and has
vehemently opposed the bail application. He submitted that the
petitioner has not disclosed the correct date of birth and his age
in the cause title of the present bail application. Allegation
against the petitioner cannot be denied on mere denial made in
the bail application and, as such, petitioner don’t deserve to be
released on pre-arrest bail.
6. Learned APP for the State also vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties and upon consideration of the materials on record,
it is evident that the petitioner was about 21 years of age on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68646 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/3
date the affidavit was sworn and the present bail application was
filed. The alleged marriage between the petitioner and the
daughter of the informant took place in the year 2022. The age
of victim as per admission on the alleged date of marriage was
23 years.
8. In such circumstances, the learned District Court is
directed to re-consider the bail application of the petitioner after
verifying the correct date of birth and age of petitioner and
statement of victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS/164
Cr.PC.
9. The present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
T
Checking your session…