Patna High Court
VISHU RAYversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent and other conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
Vishu Ray, the father‑in‑law of a dowry‑related death victim, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He had earlier been granted anticipatory bail on 21‑08‑2025 with a condition that the lower court verify his criminal antecedents, but he inadvertently omitted a pending case in his bail petition. A subsequent application to modify the bail order was dismissed. The prosecution argued that the omission indicated concealment and that the FIR implicated all accused, including Ray, in dowry demands and cruelty. The High Court, noting the lack of specific allegations against Ray and the procedural nature of the omission, granted bail subject to stringent conditions, including verification of his antecedents and compliance with Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted despite the petitioner's inadvertent omission of a pending criminal case.
- Whether the petitioner, named only generally in the FIR, warrants bail in a dowry‑related offence case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 80
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry prohibition
- criminal antecedent
- concealment
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71533 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-263 Year-2025 Thana- BEUR District- Patna
======================================================
VISHU RAY S/O RAMDEV RAY R/o 70 Feet Road, Shiv Shakti Path, Road
no. 3, P.S.- Beur, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.C.Verma, Sr.Advocate
: Mr.Jata Shankar Jha,Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anish Chandra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 16-01-2026 Heard Mr. Y.C.Verma, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned
counsel for the informant and Mr.Anish Chandra, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 263 of 2025, F.I.R. dated
25.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that earlier the petitioner has been granted privilege of
anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.08.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No.52431 of 2025 with certain conditions including
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71533 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
2/5
Condition No.iii that “And, further condition that the court
below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take
step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However,
the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
on account of lack of knowledge and confusion by the
Pairvikar of the petitioner, the petitioner has not mentioned
his one criminal antecedent which is pending, although, the
petitioner is on police bail. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed
a petition bearing Cr.Misc. No. 68766/2025 for modification
of order dated 21.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. 52431 of 2025
on the ground that due to inadvertent mistake that the
petitioner has not mentioned his one criminal antecedent in
paragraph-3 of the bail petition as that the Pairvikar of the
case had no knowledge about the criminal antecedent and the
modification application bearing Cr.Misc. No. 68766/2025
was dismissed by order dated 26.09.2025.
4. According to prosecution case, the informant was
married on 09.05.2022 and at the time of marriage, a Scorpio
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71533 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
3/5
car, jewellery, household articles and Rs. 10,00,000/- were
given as dowry. After seven to eight months of marriage, the
accused persons, namely Amarjeet @ Amit Kumar (husband),
Pramila Devi (mother-in-law), Vishu Ray (father-in-law), Puja
Kumari (nanad) and Tutu Kumar (devar), allegedly demanded
an additional Rs. 10,00,000/- for house construction and
business expansion and subjected the deceased to cruelty on
non-fulfilment of the demand. On 24.05.2025 at about 10:00
A.M.,the deceased informed the informant over phone that
she was being assaulted and threatened with death, and the
same evening the informant was informed by Pramila Devi
and Puja Kumari that his sister had died.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been made accused in the present case
merely on the ground that he is father-in-law of the deceased.
From a bare perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that although
petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but there is no specific
allegation of any assault, overt act or demand of dowry
attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and
omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including
the petitioner and the son of the petitioner, who happens to be
the husband of the deceased is in judicial custody since
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71533 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
4/5
15.07.2025.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that
the occurrence had taken place within seven years of marriage
and apart from that, there is allegation against all the accused
persons in the F.I.R. Further submits that the petitioner carries
one more case other than the present one, as mentioned in para-
3 of the present bail petition.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner,
above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
court below within a period of thirty days from the date of
receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.10,000 (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-I,
Patna in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 263 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following
conditions:-
(I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall
be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the
Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71533 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
5/5
Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates
without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled
by the Court below.
(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in
case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed
his/her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…