Patna High Court

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay ChaudhariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 25 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SHAILENDRA SINGH

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond and surety conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Summary

Vijay Kumar, husband of the second respondent, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a complaint (No. 283 of 2025) alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Dowry Prohibition Act. He contended that the trial court had taken cognizance of the offences without granting him a prior hearing, violating the mandatory proviso of Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, noting the petitioner’s young age and clean antecedents, found merit in the claim of procedural lapse and lack of medical evidence of cruelty, and therefore granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond and sureties, with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner.
Whether the trial court’s taking of cognizance without hearing violates Section 223(1) of the BNSS.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 223(1), 482(2)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 3(5), 351, 352, 85
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

anticipatory bail
cognizance
right to be heard
dowry prohibition
criminal procedure
BNS
BNSS

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9064 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2025 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
                                                         Rohtas
                 ======================================================
                 Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Chaudhari S/O Raj Grihi Chaudhari @ Grihi Chaudhari
                 Resident of Village- Sitalpur, P.S- Suryapura, District- Rohtas.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Muni Kumari D/O Dhanji Nunia, W/O- Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Chaudhari
                 R/O Village- Jagdatpur, P.S- Karaghar, Distt.- Rohtas.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s      :      Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate
                 For the State             :      Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   25-02-2026                        Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Complaint Case No. 283 of 2025 registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 85, 351, 352 and

                   3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’) and

                   Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

                                 3.     Mr. Siddharth Harsh, learned counsel appearing

                   for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the husband of

                   O.P. No. 2 and that the case of O.P. No. 2 is based on a

                   complaint. The learned trial court has taken cognizance of the

                   offences under Sections 115(2) and 85 of the BNS and Section 4
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9064 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
                                            2/3




          of the D.P. Act, in violation of the mandatory proviso appended

          to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

          Suraksha Sanhita (in short, ‘BNSS’), which clearly states that

          no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate

          without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. The

          petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard before

          taking cognizance of the alleged offences. In this regard, a

          specific statement has been made by the petitioner in the

          petition, and the cognizance order filed with this petition may

          also be perused. It is further submitted that there is no medical

          evidence to support the allegation of physical cruelty.

                     4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the

          prayer for bail of the petitioner.

                       5. Considering the above submissions and also taking

          into account the young age and fair and clean antecedent of the

          petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant the relief of

          anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, let the petitioner

          named-above, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the

          learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be

          released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

          20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the

          like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9064 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                     connection with Complaint Case No. 283 of 2025, subject to the

                     conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.




                                               (Shailendra Singh, J)

maynaz/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…