Patna High Court
Rahul Gupta @ Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Rahul Gupta sought anticipatory bail after a dowry complaint (Case No. 90 of 2025) alleged that he and his family demanded Rs. 10 lakh and a four-wheeler, harassed the complainant, and threw her out of the house. The petitioner contended that the allegations were false, highlighted a discrepancy in the date of occurrence, and claimed he was the victim of assault by the complainant's in‑laws, asserting a clean criminal record. The State and complainant opposed bail, arguing the dowry demand and assault were proven. The court examined the matrimonial dispute context and the lack of immediate evidence of a prima facie case, and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. The order also imposed surety and compliance requirements, and clarified that its observations would not affect the trial. The application for anticipatory bail was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a dowry harassment case pending under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the date discrepancy and claim of false implication affect the prima facie case against the petitioner.
- Whether the conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. are satisfied for granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 85
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry prohibition
- matrimonial dispute
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7871 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2025 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
Rahul Gupta @ Rahul Kumar, S/o- Late Ram Pravesh Saw, R/o- Mahudar
P.S.- Bodhgaya, Dist- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anshu Kumari, S/o- Rahul Gupta @ Rahul Kumar, D/o- Paro Sai, Resident
of Village- Mahudar, P.S.- Bodhgaya Dist- Gaya
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Surabhi Nirmal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP
Ms. Ranjana Singh, APP
Ms. Rabia Gulnaz, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 21-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as the
learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his/her arrest in
connection with Complaint Case No. 90 of 2025 registered for
the offence(s) under Section(s) 115(2), 109 and 85 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the
complainant has alleged that within one month of her marriage,
the accused persons demanded Rs. 10 lakhs and a four wheeler
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7871 of 2026(3) dt.21-05-2026
2/4
and started harassing her. It has further been alleged that the
complainant was forcefully thrown out of the house and,
thereafter, she has been living at her mayka.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and no
such demand of dowry or assault has ever been taken place. It
has further been submitted that from the perusal of the
complaint itself, it would be evident that the date of the
occurrence is said to be 12.09.2024 while the present complaint
was filed on 15.01.2025, i.e., after more than four months. It has
next been submitted that, in fact, it was the petitioner who was
assaulted on 12.09.2024 by the in-laws and for which the
fardbeyan was recorded in the emergency hall of Magadh
Medical College and Hospital, Gaya and, thereafter, as an
afterthought, the present complaint was filed showing the date
one day prior to the incident which had occurred with the
petitioner. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has
clean antecedent.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant and the
learned A.P.P. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and have
submitted that the petitioner and the entire family members have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7871 of 2026(3) dt.21-05-2026
3/4
been demanding dowry and even assaulted and forcefully
thrown out the complainant from the house and, thereafter, they
did not allow her to come back. It has further been submitted
that the matter was referred to mediation and despite her
eagerness to stay with the petitioner, the petitioner is now
adamant not to keep her as his legally wedded wife.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking
into account the fact that the matter relates to matrimonial
dispute where case and counter case have been filed, let the
petitioner, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in the
event of his/her arrest or surrender before the concerned
Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today,
on his/her 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 concerned Court/successor Court
where the case is pending in connection with Complaint Case
No. 90 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read
with corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to the
following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be
his/her close relative and the other shall be a local
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7871 of 2026(3) dt.21-05-2026
4/4
resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
concerned Court.
(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he/she has concealed his/her criminal
antecedents, the Court concerned shall take necessary
steps for cancellation of his/her bail bond. 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.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/sweta-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.