Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Md. Allauddin @ GulabversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner with specified conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Allauddin (also known as Gulab), sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a Mahila Police Station case alleging dowry‑related offences under several sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others assaulted and tortured the victim to demand dowry. The petitioner contended innocence and applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the High Court granted anticipatory bail, imposing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and a monthly maintenance payment of Rs.10,000 to the complainant, subject to the family court’s decision. The order also warned that non‑compliance could lead to cancellation of bail.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in a dowry‑harassment case.
  • Whether the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar are applicable to the present case.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • dowry harassment
  • Section 438 CrPC
  • Arnesh Kumar guidelines
  • maintenance order
  • Dowry Prohibition Act
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90369 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Allauddin @ Gulab S/o Abul Hasan @ Abdul Hasan R/o Village-
                 Ramuniya, PS- Bisfi, District- Madhubani

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar Bihar
           2.    Gulsan Khaton W/o Md. Allauddin @ Gulab R/o vill - Ramuniya, P.S.-
                 Bisfi, Distt.- Madhubani

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Gagandeo Yadav
                                                 Mr. Rajesh Kumar
                                                 Mr.Ravi Prakash
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh
                 For the O.P. No. 02      :      Ms. Minakshi Kumari
                                                 Mr. Munish Kumar
                                                 Mr. Munna Raj
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   18-06-2026                     Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

                   learned counsel for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Mahila P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025 for the alleged offence

                   under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3),

                   3(5) of the DP Act.

                                 3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and

                   others are accused of assaulting and torturing the victim for

                   demand of dowry.

                                 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

                   petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90369 of 2025(6) dt.18-06-2026
                                            2/3




          implicated in this case.

                       5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the

          application of the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the submission of the parties and in

          light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

          case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8

          SCC 273, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is

          allowed.

                       7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his

          arrest or surrender before the concerned Court below within four

          weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing

          bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of

          the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court

          below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection

          with Mahila P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025, subject to the conditions

          laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

          1973 / Section 482 of the BNSS and with further condition that:

                                               (I). The petitioner is directed to pay
                                  a maintenance amount of Rs. 10000/- from the
                                  month           of    June    2026      to     the
                                  complainant/informant. The maintenance for the
                                  month of June 2026 shall be paid to the
                                  complainant/informant within ten days from
                                  today, and thereafter, the maintenance amount
                                  shall be paid to the complainant/informant
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90369 of 2025(6) dt.18-06-2026
                                                      3/3




                                            every month before the 10th day of each month.
                                 8. It is made clear that the order of maintenance

                    passed by this Court shall be subject to the outcome of the

                    maintenance case in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court

                    concerned, if any.

                                 9. Needless to state that, if the petitioner fails to abide

                    by the terms and conditions, as stated hereinabove, the State

                    shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application, before the

                    learned concerned Court below for cancellation of bail granted

                    to the petitioner.

                                 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the

                    Principal District & Sessions Judge, Madhubani through FAX

                    for its compliance forthwith.



                                                            (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.