Patna High Court
Premjit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with specified conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Premjit Kumar sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a dowry‑related complaint (Complaint No. 934 C of 2024) alleging demand of Rs.20 lakh and subsequent torture of his wife, Arti Kumari, under Section 85 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner denied any wrongdoing and offered to pay Rs.5,000 per month as living expenses to the wife, an offer accepted by the wife’s counsel. The court, after hearing both sides, considered the merits of the anticipatory bail application and the parties’ agreement. It granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and to deposit Rs.5,000 monthly in the wife’s bank account starting 10 May 2026. The order was made subject to compliance with these conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in the dowry‑related offence.
- Whether the conditions imposed, including monthly payment to the complainant, are appropriate and lawful.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry prohibition
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
- Section 85 B.N.S.
- Section 3 Dowry Act
- Section 4 Dowry Act
- domestic violence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91846 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-934 Year-2024 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nalanda
======================================================
Premjit Kumar S/O Lakshman Prasad R/O Village- Manaki, P.O - Uttarnama,
P.S- Rahui, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arti Kumari W/O Premjit Kumar, D/O Ravindra Prasad R/O Village-
Mananki (Manki), P.O- Uttarnama, P.S- Rahui, Distt.- Nalanda and at
present resident of Village- Imadpur, P.O- Bihar Sharif, P.S- Bihar, Distt.-
Nalanda.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar
For the State : Mr.Md. Shakir Ahmad
For the O. P. No.2 : Ms. Kumari Sujata Sinha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-04-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel
for the informant-Opposite Party No. 2 and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Complaint Case No. 934 C of 2024, in which cognizance
has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections
85 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The prosecution case, as per the complaint petition, is that
the marriage of the Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized
with the petitioner on 28.06.2020 and after sometime, the
petitioner and other family members started demanding
Rs. 20,00,000/- by way of dowry and due to non-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91846 of 2025(4) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
fulfillment of the said demand, the petitioner and other
family members tortured the Opposite Party No. 2
physically as well as mentally.
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. 5,000/- 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 Opposite Party No. 2 accepts the
offer so made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and
submits that the Opposite Party No. 2 is on the verge of
starvation the petitioner may be directed to deposit the
said amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month in the bank account
of the 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 a period of
one week from today.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91846 of 2025(4) dt.29-04-2026
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 Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nalanda, at
Biharsharif, in connection with Complaint Case No. 934
C of 2024.
9. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall
deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month in the bank
account of Opposite Party No. 2 positively, starting from
10th May, 2026.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…