Patna High Court
Shaurabh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing release on bail bond with conditions under Section 482(2).
Summary
Shaurabh Kumar sought anticipatory bail in a complaint alleging he received marriage expenses after a marriage was called off, leading to charges under IPC sections 406, 420 and 34. He contended he had a clean antecedent, that the informant’s daughter voluntarily married another person before the scheduled date, and that the amount alleged was exaggerated. The State opposed bail, asserting the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, considering the petitioner’s cooperation, lack of prior record, and low risk of absconding, exercised its inherent powers under Section 482(2) to grant bail. Consequently, the court ordered his release on a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to the usual conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the case
- Whether the allegations constitute offences punishable under IPC Sections 406, 420 and 34
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence if released on bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438, 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 406 IPC
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 482(2) CrPC
- marriage dispute
- false implication
- high court inherent powers
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71932 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-353 Year-2024 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Samastipur
======================================================
Shaurabh Kumar S/o Deelip Sah R/o Village- Saukh, P.S- Muffasil, District-
Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shiv Kumar Sah S/o Late Ram Lakhan Sah R/o vill - Bandiha, P.S.- Rosera,
Distt.- Samastipur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar
Mr. Arjun Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin
Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 18-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the complainant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and in sum and
substance the complainant alleges that marriage of his daughter
was fixed with the petitioner and the informant had given an
amount of Rs.9 Lacs along with articles worth Rs.2 Lacs by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71932 of 2025(4) dt.18-04-2026
2/3
different modes in between 16.08.2023 to 23.11.2023 to the
groom’s side by way of expense in the marriage, but then, the
marriage was called off and the accused persons including the
petitioner did not return the amount.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner and his family members have been falsely implicated
in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that no
doubt the marriage of the daughter of the informant was fixed
with the petitioner for 10.12.2023, but then, the daughter of the
informant on her own volition married another boy namely,
Kundan with whom she was in love on 03.12.2023. It is further
submitted that one can well imagine the plight of the petitioner
and his family that after making all arrangements of marriage
their face in the society was lowered. It is next submitted that
some amount was given by the side of the informant to the
petitioner for marriage expense, but then, the amount was a
meager amount and not what is being alleged in the FIR. It is
also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted,
the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the
investigation to prove his innocence. It is also submitted that the
offence for which the instant FIR has been instituted carries
punishment of seven years or less.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71932 of 2025(4) dt.18-04-2026
3/3
5. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant opposes the anticipatory
bail application, but then, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the complainant is not in a position to rebut the
submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that daughter of the informant on her own volition
married Kundan with whom she was in love on 03.12.2023 i.e.
prior to the date of marriage fixed with the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail
on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is
pending/successor Court in connection with Complaint Case
No.353 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…