Patna High Court
Harsh Raj @ Raja BabuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to a bail bond, two sureties, and a monthly payment of Rs 15,000 to the complainant.
Summary
The petitioner, Harsh Raj, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a complaint (No. 5790 of 2024) alleging offences under IPC Section 498‑A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint alleged that he coerced a relationship, married the complainant after she became pregnant, demanded and later increased dowry, and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, including forced abortions. The petitioner denied any wrongdoing and offered to pay Rs 15,000 per month to the complainant as living expenses, subject to the final outcome of the case. The complainant accepted this offer, stating her financial hardship. After hearing both sides, the court was persuaded by the offer and the lack of conclusive evidence, and decided to grant anticipatory bail. The bail was conditioned on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and the monthly payment of Rs 15,000 to the complainant’s bank account starting 10 June 2026. The application for anticipatory bail was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under IPC Section 498‑A and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the condition of a monthly payment to the complainant is a valid condition for anticipatory bail.
- Whether the bail bond and sureties prescribed satisfy the requirements of Section 438 of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498-A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC 498-A
- dowry harassment
- domestic violence
- bail conditions
- criminal law
- family dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8919 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5790 Year-2024 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Harsh Raj @ Raja Babu S/o Kanhaiya Yadav @ Kanhiaya Kumar R/o
Mohalla - Bhawar Pokhar, P.S - Pirbahore, District - Patna At present R/o -
New Panapur, Danapur, P.S - Akilpur, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Salu Kumari W/o Raja Babu @ Harsh Raj D/o Ranjan Prasad Gupta, R/o
Mohalla - Daldali Road, Bakarganj, Gali No. 3, P.S - Kadamkuan, District -
Patna At present R/o - Daldali Road, Bakarganj Gali No. 2, P.S -
Kadamkuan, District - Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Krishna Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Zainul Abedin
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 06-05-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel
for the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Complaint Case No. 5790 (C) of 2024, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The allegation, as per the complaint case, is that the
petitioner developed relationship with her by coercion
and intimidation, married her after she became pregnant
on 05.07.2020 in a temple following wedding on
26.05.2022, in which, as per demand of petitioner’s in-
laws Rs. 40 Lakhs was given. After marriage, she was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8919 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
subjected to physical and mental cruelty, repeated
assaults, forced abortions and dowry demands by
petitioner and his in-laws, who later demanded Rs. 80
lakhs and a luxury car for reconciliation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner
alleged and he has falsely been implicated in this case.
However, without prejudice to the right and contention of
the petitioner, and in order to maintain harmony in the
family, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay a sum of
Rs. 15,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No. 2 as
living cost, subject to the final outcome of the present
case as well as the matrimonial case, if any, pending
and/or decided between the parties.
5. Learned Counsel for the complainant-Opposite Party No.
2 accepts the offer so made by learned Counsel for the
petitioner and submits that the opposite party no. 2 is
suffering from penury and the petitioner may be directed
to deposit the said amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month in
the bank account of the complainant-Opposite Party No.
2, details of which shall be furnished by learned Counsel
for the Opposite Party No. 2 to learned Counsel for the
petitioner within ten days from today.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8919 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
6. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the materials on record and the
fact that the offer made by learned Counsel for the
petitioner has been accepted by learned Counsel for the
Opposite Party No. 2, 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/surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on bail, upon
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 Sadar,
Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No. 5790 (C)
of 2024.
9. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall
deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month in the bank
account of Opposite Party No. 2, starting from 10th June,
2026.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
ashwani/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.