Patna High Court
Anup Kumar Shah @ Anup KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail.
Summary
Anup Kumar Shah applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a dowry harassment case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498A and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that Shah, as the husband, participated in torturing and harassing his wife for dowry and subsequently evicted her. Shah contended that he did not demand dowry, did not commit any offence, and that the case stemmed from a petty family dispute, citing his clean antecedents and a prior judgment supporting bail. The State opposed the bail. Considering the general and omnibus nature of the allegations, Shah's clean record, and the lack of specific evidence, the Court granted anticipatory bail, directing him to surrender within eight weeks and furnish a bail bond with sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged dowry harassment and multiple IPC offences.
- Whether the general and omnibus nature of the allegations and the petitioner's clean antecedents justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- Indian Penal Code
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Criminal Procedure
- family dispute
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85154 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Anup Kumar Shah @ Anup Kumar S/o Akshay Kumar Shah R/o Village -
Chaugai, P.S - Murar, District - Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Neha Upadhyay D/o Sanjay Upadhyay R/o Village - Mainpura, P.S - Ara
Muffasil, District - Bhojpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
For the Informant : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 17-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Despite valid service of notice, nobody appears on
behalf of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2.
3. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
504, 506, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that marriage
of the informant was solemnized with this petitioner as per
Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged that after marriage, all the
F.I.R. named accused persons, including this petitioner,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85154 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
subjected the informant to torture and harassment due to non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry and subsequently, ousted her
from her matrimonial house.
5. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner
is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner has
falsely been implicated in this case merely because happens to
be husband of the informant and present case has been lodged
due to petty family dispute. There are general and omnibus
allegations. As a matter of fact, the petitioner at no point of time
demanded any dowry or committed torture. It is further
submitted that petitioner is ready to keep the informant, as his
wife, with full honour and dignity. It is next submitted that the
case is triable by the Magistrate. In this connection, learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this
Court in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul
Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in
2006(3) PLJR 182. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation and clean
antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85154 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
bail to the petitioner is allowed.
8. Accordingly, let the above named petitioner, in the
event of his arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from
today, 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, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Mahila P.S. Case
No. 09 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…