← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25582/2025bail granted

Prashant Kumar Soni v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-25Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25582 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-606 Year-2022 Thana- BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictBuxar ====================================================== Prashant Kumar Soni Son of Vijay Kant Soni @ Munna Resident of Nirala Nagar Gadwar Road Paramanandpur Balia, Police Station - Kotwali Balia in the district of Balia (U.P.) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Kanchan Kumari Verma Wife of Prashant Kumar Soni Daughter of Gopal Prasad, Resident of Main Road Tarkanala Buxar, Near P.N.B. (Main Branch), Police Station - Buxar Town the district of Buxar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Asha Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajni Kant Pandey, learned counsel representing the informant beside Mrs. Asha Kumari, learned APP.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 606(C) of 2022 for the offence under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act lodged by the informant, Kanchan Kumari Verma.

3. As per the complaint, the lady alleged that the marriage took place in the year 2019 but she was always

2/4 tortured for SUV car and in continuation of that, she was regularly thrashed which followed the Complaint Case No. 678 of 2020 but as they compromised, the same was closed. Later, they again resorted to torture and assault which led to the present complaint case.

4. In the present case, the Court wanted the couple to come to an amicable settlement as the petitioner is holding the post of Branch Manager in the Bank of Baroda, Head Office, Baroda, Gujrat.

5. Pursuant to the earlier orders, the petitioner as also the complaint are present. This Court gave them some time to come to terms but it seems that, for the present, they are not ready to reconcile. However, this Court appreciates the stand of the petitioner that he on his own submitted that presently he is paying Rs. 12,000/- to the lady but now wants to enhance it to Rs. 15,000/- per month which he shall be paying by 10th of every month beginning from March 2026.

6. As recorded above, for the present, they are not ready to continue their marital journey, expecting that they will come to terms/reunite in future, taking into account the aforesaid facts as also that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, is holding a post, sending him to jail will not serve

3/4 any purpose and is ready to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month by 10th of every month beginning March 2026, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.

7. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Buxar in connection with Complaint Case No. 606(C) of 2022 subject to the following conditions:

(i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document (Aadhaar Card/Voter ID Card/Pan Card/Driving License) to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police Station as and when required for cooperating in the investigation;

4/4 (iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T