Patna High Court
Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail in a complaint case (No.1110 of 2023) alleging offences under IPC sections 498A, 323, 406, 504, 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4. He claimed he was falsely implicated by his wife, Aarti Kumari, and that the marital relationship had broken down. The wife contended that the petitioner demanded dowry, assaulted her, evicted her and their child, and failed to comply with a family court maintenance order of Rs.5,000 per month. The court examined the allegations and the seriousness of the offences, particularly the dowry harassment provision. Concluding that the petitioner’s conduct warranted custody, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged offences under IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 406, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- maintenance order
- family court
- criminal law
- domestic violence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69888 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1110 Year-2023 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE
District- Rohtas
======================================================
Sonu Kumar S/O Ram Awadhesh Singh Resident of Village- Jagdishpur, P.S.-
Natwar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Aarti Kumari W/O Sonu Kumar, D/O Satyendra Singh Resident of Village-
Jagdishpur, P.S.- Natwar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram, presently Resident of
Village- Kargahar, P.S.- Kargahar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chhote Lal Mishra
Ms.Jyoti Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nityanand
Ms.Niharika Rani
Ms.Rinki Kumari
Mr.Sanjay Sinha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 09-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the opposite party no.2.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Complaint Case No.1110 of 2023 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 406, 504 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the D. P.
Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner being husband has been falsely implicated in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69888 of 2025(4) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
instant case by the opposite party no.2. It is next submitted that
petitioner was married to the opposite party no.2 on 30.11.2020
and out of the wedlock, a child was born. It is further submitted
that relationship in between the petitioner and the opposite party
no.2 has soured to an extent where it is not possible to revive the
conjugal relationship in the present, but with passage of time
and on intervention of well-wishers, the parties may resolve the
dispute amicably.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite party no.2 submits that after marriage, the petitioner
started demanding a motorcycle and Rs. One lac by way of
dowry and on account of non-fulfilment of the demand, the
opposite party no.2 was assaulted and was ousted from the
house with her child. It is further submitted that opposite party
no.2 had moved before the learned Family Court, Rohtas at
Sasaram by filing a maintenance case. It is submitted that
learned Family Court allowed the maintenance case and directed
the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and
the same was to commence from 26.06.2024. It is next
submitted that petitioner till date has not paid a single penny, as
such, one can well imagine the plight of opposite party no.2
how she is surviving in absence of financial support when she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69888 of 2025(4) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
has responsibility of a child who is staying with her. It is thus
submitted that act of the petitioner is causing immense mental
and physical trauma to the opposite party no.2.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner.
6. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…