Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30660 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1556 Year-2021 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran ====================================================== Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Prasad Son of Yugeshwar Prasad @ Yogeshwer Kumar Resident Of Village - Barka @ Baraka Gaon, P.S.- Jalalpur, DistSaran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rani Devi Wife of Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Prasad Resident Of Village - Barka Gaon, Ps- Jalalpur, Dist- Saran at Chapra Present Residing Ussai Chapra (Husse Chapra), Ps- Chapra Tow, Dist- Saran at Chapra ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Shweta Anand For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 29.11.2025 in connection with Complaint Case No. 1556 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as alleged in the complaint petition, complainant was married to the petitioner on 01.12.2020 and after the marriage, she started residing at her matrimonial home. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry articles including cash, gold

2/4 ornaments, and household items were given. Initially, the behavior of the petitioner and his family members was stated to be cordial, however, after some time, they allegedly started subjecting the complainant to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry.

It is further alleged that in January, 2021, the complainant found the petitioner in an objectionable position with a female relative, and upon raising objection, she was abused and assaulted by the petitioner and his family members. It is also alleged that the accused persons threatened to oust her from the matrimonial home and to perform second marriage of the petitioner. The prosecution further alleges that on 01.03.2021, the complainant was again assaulted, her belongings were taken away, and she was forcibly driven out of her matrimonial home, whereafter she returned to her parental house and narrated the occurrence to her family members. Subsequently, efforts of reconciliation by the family members failed, leading to filing of the present complaint case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and petitioner has been granted bail vide order dated 20.03.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 18634 of 2024. It is next submitted that the petitioner has not complied

3/4 with the conditions as stipulated in the order dated 20.03.2024 and, therefore, the bail bonds of the petitioner was cancelled by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although both the parties have settled the dispute in Domestic Violence No. 04 of 2025 and petitioner is not in a position to comply with the order dated 20.03.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 18634 of 2024 and petitioner is in custody since 29.11.2025.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge XI, Saran, Chapra in connection with Complaint Case No. 1556 of 2021, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

4/4 ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T