Patna High Court
Amir Arsad @ Amri ArshadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that, given the petitioner’s compliance with the court‑ordered monthly payment and the nature of the marital dispute, anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC could be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Amir Arsad, sought anticipatory bail in a dowry complaint alleging that he was falsely implicated in demands for a four-wheeler and related cruelty. The complainant claimed the petitioner supported dowry demands, while the petitioner argued he was residing in Saudi Arabia, belonged to a respectable family, and was already paying Rs.3,000 per month to his wife as ordered by a Special Judge. The court considered the nature of the marital dispute, the petitioner’s compliance with the court‑ordered monthly payment, and the lack of concrete evidence of dowry demand. It noted that the allegations were general and that the petitioner had not appeared for a court‑ordered mediation. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, invoking Sections 438(2) of the CrPC and 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023. The bail order was conditioned on surrender or arrest within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a dowry‑related criminal complaint
- Whether the petitioner’s regular payment to the wife and the nature of the marital dispute justify bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438, 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry prohibition
- marital dispute
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 85 BNS
- Section 3 Dowry Act
- Section 4 Dowry Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83090 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-518 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District-
Kishanganj
======================================================
Amir Arsad @ Amri Arshad Son of Dr. Arshad Ali R/o Village - Hathauda,
P.S.- Hussainganj, District - Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Kant, Adv.
: Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv.
: Mr. Subhash Kumar Tiwari, Adv.
: Ms. Karnika, Adv.
: Ms. Srishti Kumari, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Renu Kumari, App.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
arises out of Complaint Case No. 518 of 2024, disclosing
offences under Sections 85 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3 / 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant
alleges that after her marriage on 08.07.2023, she was subjected
to dowry demands for a four-wheeler by her in-laws, supported
by the petitioner. Upon non-fulfilment, she was threatened and
subjected to mental and physical cruelty. She also discovered
the petitioner’s prior marriage and ultimately left her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83090 of 2025(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
matrimonial home with police assistance, leading to the filing of
the complaint.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. It is submitted that he has been residing and
employed in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, even after the marriage,
which is admitted by the complainant. It is next submitted that
the petitioner belongs to a financially sound and respectable
family, making the allegation of dowry demand improbable. The
complainant is alleged to have voluntarily left the matrimonial
home due to her own conduct and thereafter instituted the
present case with malicious intent. It is also submitted that the
allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is further
submitted that Rs. 3,000/- is being paid by the petitioner to the
O.P. No. 2 as per the direction of learned Special Judge,
Kishanganj, vide order dated 26.05.2025.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
complainant vehemently opposes the prayer for and bail and
submits that order for mediation was passed dated 11.12.2025
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court but the petitioner never
appeared for mediation and petitioner is an engineer working in
Saudi Arabia on a high pay.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83090 of 2025(3) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
6. Having regard to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of
dispute between husband and wife and the fact that the
petitioner has been paying a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month to his
wife as per the order of learned Special Judge, Kishanganj, I am
inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application is, accordingly, allowed.
8. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his arrest or surrender before the Court below within four
weeks, 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 Sessions Judge, Kishanganj,
in connection with Complaint Case No. 518 of 2024, subject to
the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-
U T
Checking your session…