Patna High Court
Amit Kumar Rai @ Amit Kumar Ray @ Amit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to conditions, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Rai, sought anticipatory bail after a complaint was lodged against him under Section 498A of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He alleged that his wife, Puja Kumari, had concealed a prior marriage to a man named Sumit and had a daughter from that marriage, rendering their own marriage void. Rai claimed the complaint was false and that he was caring for a male child born from their union, while Puja had left the child with him. The State argued that a process under Section 82 CrPC had been issued, which normally bars anticipatory bail, but the court considered the specific facts. The High Court held that anticipatory bail could be granted subject to conditions, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when a process under Section 82 CrPC has been issued.
- Whether the complaint under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act is false on the ground of a prior marriage.
- Whether the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is void due to the respondent's earlier marriage.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482, 82
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 498A
- dowry harassment
- void marriage
- prior marriage
- false complaint
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91259 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2023 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Begusarai
======================================================
Amit Kumar Rai @ Amit Kumar Ray @ Amit Kumar Son of late Amarkant
Roy Resident of village- Baghwa, ward no. 7, P.S.- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Dist.-
Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Puja Kumari W/o Amit Kumar Rai @ Amit Kumar Roy @ Amit Kumar
Resident of Village- Baghwa, Ward No.-6, Post- Gopalpur, P.S.- Simri
Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. At present- D/o Ganga Thakur, resident of
Vishwanath Nagar, Ward No.-23, Road No.-5, P.S.- Nagar Thana, Dist.-
Begusarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Goutam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sujeet Kumar Gupta, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the O.P. No. 2,
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91259 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/5
registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
dispute is matrimonial. It is next submitted that petitioner
married the O.P. No. 2 and out of the wedlock a male child was
born who presently is with the petitioner, but then petitioner
came to know that O.P. No. 2 was married from before with one
Sumit and out of the wedlock, a daughter was born who
presently is aged about seven years and when petitioner
confronted the O.P. No. 2 on the issue, the instant false case
came to be instituted. It is further submitted that it is not in
dispute that O.P. No. 2 is married to Sumit and out of the
wedlock, a girl child was born who presently is with the O.P.
No. 2. It is also submitted that O.P. No. 2 has not divorced her
earlier husband Sumit and concealing the fact that she was
married from before, performed her marriage with the petitioner.
It is next submitted that since O.P. No. 2 is married from before,
as such, her marriage with the petitioner concealing the said fact
does not give rise to legitimate marriage, it is submitted that the
marriage is void. It is also submitted that O.P. No. 2 leaving the
male child with the petitioner had left the house and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91259 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/5
petitioner is taking care of the child.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.
No. 2 is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that O.P. No. 2 is
married from before and from her first marriage, a girl child was
born and the O.P. No. 2 has not divorced her earlier husband.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that while filing the instant
complaint case, the O.P. No. 2 concealed the fact that she was
married from before rather gave an impression to the Court that
the children i.e. both female and male were born out of the
wedlock in between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2. It is
submitted that the complaint case does not even remotely
suggest that O.P. No. 2 was married from before and was having
a girl child from her first marriage, it is also submitted that
during her S.A. before the learned Trial Court, the said fact i.e.
about her earlier marriage and child was also concealed.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.
No. 2, at this stage, submits that process under Section 82
Cr.P.C. has been issued, on which the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner submits that no doubt when a process
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued, it becomes difficult for an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91259 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
4/5
accused to get the privilege of anticipatory bail, but then the
facts of the case also needs to be appreciated. It is also
submitted that it is not that in all cases where process under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued, the anticipatory bail is barred. It is
reiterated and submitted that petitioner was completely unaware
that the O.P. No. 2 was married from before and was having a
girl child from her first marriage and the O.P. No. 2 concealing
the said fact married the petitioner, but then the marriage is a
void marriage, since till date O.P. No. 2 has not obtained divorce
from her first husband. It is also reiterated and submitted that
petitioner is taking care of his child whom O.P. No. 2 left with
her and refused to take the child back, as would manifest that
from Annexure P/3A at Page 33 where the Women Helpline had
tried to mediate the issue, but then it is recorded that O.P. No. 2
refused to take the child back with her.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner above-
named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of
six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91259 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
5/5
the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court
in connection with Complaint Case No. 249 of 2023 subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.
8. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.