Patna High Court
Sandeep kumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to a bond and specific conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Summary
Sandeep Kumar sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a FIR (Case No. 336 of 2025) that alleged offences under several sections of the B.N.S. relating to dowry demand and torture. He contended that the allegations were false and stemmed from a series of complaints filed by his wife, Goldi Kumari, after he initiated divorce proceedings. The petitioner had previously obtained anticipatory bail in a 2024 case (Complaint No. 986(C)) with a condition to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,500. The State and the complainant opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner had a duty of care and was already involved in multiple cases. The Court, noting that the present FIR arose from the same set of allegations for which bail had already been granted, ordered the release of the petitioner on bail subject to a bond of Rs. 10,000 and several conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S., 2023. The bail order also required the petitioner’s cooperation with the trial and compliance with verification of his criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in light of the pending FIR and prior bail order?
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged failure to fulfill marital duties and multiple pending cases justify denial of bail?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 117(2), 127(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2), 74, 76, 85
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- domestic violence
- Criminal Procedure Code
- B.N.S.
- maintenance
- divorce
- section 438
- section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89586 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2025 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West
Champaran
======================================================
Sandeep kumar son of Ramayan kumar Resident of village- Kotwa, Ps-
Paharpur, Dist-East Champarann
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Goldi Kumari Wife of Sandeep Kumar Resident of village- Sariswa bazar,
Ps- Majhauliya, Dist- West Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Avinash Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Avinash Raj, learned counsel for the
Opposite Party No. 2 and Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Complaint Case No. 337(C) of 2025 which was
sent for registration in F.I.R. bearing Bettiah Town P.S. Case No.
336 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 12.07.2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 127(2), 117(2), 74, 76, 85, 303(2),
352, 351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S.
3. Petitioner is husband of the informant. Allegation
against the petitioner is of demand of dowry and torture for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89586 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/5
same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
earlier the Opposite Party No. 2 has filed a case against the
petitioner bearing Complaint Case No. 986 (C ) of 2024 for the
offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the
Court of Learned S.D.J.M., West Champaran at Bettiah and the
petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated
04.04.2025 in A.B.P. No. 2219 of 2024 with a condition that the
petitioner will pay Rs. 3,500/- as maintenance to the Opposite
Party No. 2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner has filed a Divorce Suit No. 122 of 2024
before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari, East
Champaran on 15.03.2024 and thereafter the Opposite Party No.
2 has filed Complaint Case No. 986(C ) of 2024 on 18.05.2024.
Thereafter, she has filed second Complaint Case No. 420 of
2025 and Maintenance Case No. 162 of 2024 before the
Principal Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran. Thereafter, she has
filed Domestic Violence Case No. 38 of 2024 on 18.05.2024.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89586 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/5
Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried his best effort to
settle the issue but the Complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) is
not ready to live with the petitioner and ultimately, the petitioner
has filed the aforesaid Divorce Case against the complainant
and thereafter the Opposite Party No. 2 has filed several cases as
mentioned aforesaid against the petitioner only to harass the
petitioner and his family members. Although, the petitioner has
been granted anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 986(C) of
2024 and for the same set of allegation the petitioner has filed
the present case.
6. Learned APP for the State as well as learned
counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, on the other hand, has
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner being a husband of the Complainant
(Opposite Party No. 2), his duty to proper care of Opposite
Party No. 2 but he is not doing so and also the petitioner carries
two more cases other than the present one but fairly submits on
the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail petition that out of two
cases, the petitioner is on bail in one case and both the cases
have been filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 against the
petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts that same set of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89586 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
4/5
allegation the present F.I.R. was instituted by the Opposite Party
No. 2 and earlier the petitioner has been granted bail in
Complaint Case No. 986 (C) of 2024 by the learned Court
below itself and pursuant to the direction of the learned Court
below, the petitioner has to pay Rs. 3,500/- as a compensation to
the Opposite Party No. 2 as well as Divorce Case is pending
between the parties before the competent court of law, let the
petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of thirty days from the
date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in
connection with Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 336 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure/ Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023
and with other following conditions :-
(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89586 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
5/5
(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…