Vinod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18075 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-287 Year-2025 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Vinod Kumar Son of Late Ram Narayan Prasad R/o 303 B, Jai Maheshwari Complex, Exhibition Road, P.S. - Phulwari, Patna - 800001, Bihar. 2.

Ankita Kedia W/o Ashit Jindal R/o Flat no. 11, Block - B, Ashoka Palace, Exhibtion Road, P.S. - Gandhi Maidan, Dist. - Patna, Bihar. 3.

Ashit Jindal Son of Deburam Agarwal R/o Flat no. 11, Block - B, Ashoka Palace, Exhibtion Road, P.S. - Gandhi Maidan, Dist. - Patna, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Saumya @ Nishi D/o Sudhir Kumar R/o House no. 28, Veer Shivaji Path, P.S. - Sri Krishna Puri, Dist. - Patna, Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Avanish Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Adv Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-05-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 64, 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no. 2 is a woman and the informant alleges that she is an Executive

2/5 with Indigo Airlines, further Ashit and Ankita met her father and a proposal was made for marrying informant with Shyam, further the proposal was accepted and Ashit and Ankita requested her father that accused persons would meet her, further the marriage was finalised and engagement was performed on 18-5-2025 and she started talking to Shyam, further Vinod came to her house and asked her father to give Rs. 10 lakh for marriage expenses, accordingly her father gave Rs. 6 lakh, next alleges that marriage was fixed for 1-12-2025 and the venue was selected, further on 15-8-2025, Ankita called her to her house from where she took her to a restaurant on a car along with Shyam and Ashit and they took lunch at Rare Window restaurant, S.K. Puri at Patna, further alleges that she drank cold drink and became senseless and thereafter they took her to Shyam's house where Shyam forcefully established physical relation, further her father went to the house of Shyam, when Vinod demanded a four-wheeler, on showing helplessness to the demand, the marriage was broken.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner no. 1 is father of Shyam, while petitioner no. 2 is own sister of Shyam and

3/5 petitioner no. 3 is husband of petitioner no. 2. It is further submitted that it is not in dispute that marriage of Shyam with the informant was fixed, but then the proposal came from the father of the informant and after talking to the informant, even Shyam got ready for marrying her, as such engagement took place on 18-5-2025 and thereafter the marriage was fixed for 112-2025, but then the informant disclosed to Shyam that she is in a relationship with one Nishant Yadav for the last 11 years and is not interested in marrying the petitioner, but then she is being forced by her father to marry him, the said disclosure came as a shock to Shyam, as such he disclosed the said fact to his sister (Ankita) and brother-in-law (Ashit) and they on coming to know about what was disclosed by the informant to Shyam, the petitioner nos.

2 and 3 requested the informant to accompany them for lunch at Rare Window Restaurant, it is next submitted that they picked the informant and they had lunch in the restaurant and even petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were of the opinion that since informant is in a relationship from before, as such the marriage should be cancelled. It is further submitted that when the marriage got cancelled, it appears that father of the informant became enraged and thereafter the present false case came to be instituted.

4/5 appear probable that own sister of Shyam along with her husband would have made the informant drink cold drink and when she became senseless, would have brought to the house of Shyam allowing Shyam to ravish her. It is also submitted that from perusal of the Annexures- 3 and 4 to the anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that the same contains the chat in between Shyam and the informant and from perusal of the conversation, it would manifest that informant disclosed about Nishant.

5.

At this stage, the Court made a specific query from the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant that as to whether informant is known to Nishant or not, on which it is fairly submitted that Nishant and informant are known to each other.

6.

At this stage the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners thus submits that in the nature of the allegations and the facts which have come to the fore, if petitioners are sent to custody, it would amount to travesty of justice as allegation of giving money has been alleged only with a view to give seriousness to the case when no monetary transaction in between the father of the informant and the petitioner no. 1 ever took place. It is next submitted that if

5/5 privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, the petitioners will not abscond rather will co-operate in the investigation to prove their innocence.

7.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

8.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Sri Krishna Puri P.S. Case No. 287 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T