Patna High Court
Ravi Kumar Raj @ Ramashankar @ JhunjhunversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that, considering the petitioner’s clean antecedents and interim maintenance, anticipatory bail should be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Kumar Raj, husband of the complainant Ranjna Kumari, was implicated in a complaint case under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for alleged dowry harassment. He applied for anticipatory bail, asserting his innocence, clean antecedents, and that he was already paying interim maintenance of Rs.8,000 per month as ordered in a separate maintenance case. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the allegations. The High Court, after considering the nature of the accusations, the petitioner’s clean record, and the maintenance payments, allowed the prayer for anticipatory bail. The court ordered that, if arrested within eight weeks, the petitioner may be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to the conditions of Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused in a complaint under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedents and payment of interim maintenance justify the grant of bail
- Whether the allegations of dowry harassment warrant arrest pending trial
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 498A
- dowry harassment
- maintenance
- clean antecedents
- High Court
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82044 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7203 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Ravi Kumar Raj @ Ramashankar @ Jhunjhun S/o- Jamadar Pandit R/O
Village- Karamachak PS- Kalyanpur District- East Champaranat Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ranjna Kumari D/o- Amresh Pandit R/O Village- Bispatti Ward No-03 PS-
Sursand District-Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP
For the Complainant : Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 13-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint
case registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, this petitioner, along
with other F.I.R. named accused persons, is alleged to have
tortured and harassed the complainant due to non-fulfillment of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82044 of 2025(5) dt.13-03-2026
2/3
demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits and petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no
offence. While denying the allegations, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in
this case merely because he is husband of the
complainant/Opposite Party No. 2. Moreover, petitioner is ready
to keep her with full honour and safety. As a matter of fact, at no
point of time, petitioner committed torture or harassment with
the complainant and neither demanded dowry. He further
submits that pursuant to order passed in the maintenance case
filed by the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2, bearing
Maintenance Case No. 100 of 2023, petitioner is already paying
an interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the
complainant and undertakes to continue paying the same till
further orders. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and
learned counsel for the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 have
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, nature of accusation and clean antecedents of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82044 of 2025(5) dt.13-03-2026
3/3
petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioner be enlarged 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 Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Patna in connection with Patna Complaint Case No.
7203(c) of 2023, subject to condition as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…