Sanjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6104 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-295 Year-2019 Thana- CIVIL LINE District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Sanjit Kumar S/O Kishori Prasad, Resident of Village Bich Bazar Kurtha, P.S.- Kurtha, District- Arwal.

2.

Kundan Kumar Son of Kishori Prasad, Resident of Village Bich Bazar Kurtha, P.S.- Kurtha, District- Arwal.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Kumari Sonam Verma, W/o Dharmendra Verma @ Abhiraj Verma Resident of Village- Nadraganj River Side Road Gaya, P.S.- Civil Lines, DistrictGaya. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP Mr. Ramashish, Advocate Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 04-02-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Civil Line P.S. Case no.295 of 2019, registered under section 498A, 323, 341, 504, 506, 380 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that she was married to Dharmendra Kumar Verma in the year 2019. The petitioners who are the elder and younger brothers of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6104 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026 2/3 her husband were involved in the talks at the time of settlement of marriage. Various articles as mentioned in the F.I.R. as also Rs.1 lac was transferred in the account of the wife of petitioner no.1. It is further stated that soon after the occurrence, the accused persons including the petitioners herein started to physically and mentally torture the informant leading to the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who happen to be the bhaisur and devar of the informant have been falsely implicated in the case. They were granted bail vide order dated 2.2.2022 (Annexure-1) passed in Cr. Misc. no.2437 of 2021 with the interim protection and the direction that the bail would continue till the matter is settled between the informant and her husband. Learned counsel submits that subsequently the petitioners were taken into custody. The husband of the informant has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 1.7.2021 (Annexure-3) passed in Cr. Misc. no.19222 of 2021. The petitioners are in custody since 13.11.2025 and have no criminal antecedent.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 who has appeared suo-motu. It is submitted by learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6104 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026 3/3 counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 that not only the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. but there is direct allegation against them of having demanded and extorted dowry from the father of the informant with Rs.1 lac in cash having been transferred in the account of the wife of the petitioner no.1. The torture by the petitioners continued leading to the case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R., the relationship of the petitioners with the informant, the petitioners being in custody since 13.11.2025 and the husband of the informant having been enlarged on bail vide order dated 1.7.2021 (Annexure-3), both the petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Civil Line P.S. Case no.295 of 2019, on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya.

(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T