Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36321 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-534 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== Ranjan Kumar Son of Late Muneshwar Prasad Resident of Village - Manpur Bazar, Yadav Toli, Police Station - Buniyadganj, District - Gaya. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sheetal Devi Wife of Ranjan Kumar Resident of Village - Manpur Bazar, Yadav Toli, Police Station - Buniyadganj, District - Gaya. Presently residing at Shastri Nagar, Goraiya Sthan, Police Station - Rampur, District - Gaya. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar 2, Adv.

Mr. Aryan Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-06-2026 Heard Mr. Manish Kumar 2, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, learned Additional Public Prosecution for the State and O.P. No. 2 is represented through Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned Advocate through virtual mode.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gaya Complaint Case No. 534 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 379, 504/34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act, wherein cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 323 of the I.P.C. read with Section 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act.

2/4

3. Allegedly, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the O.P. No. 2 in the year 2003, however, since inception, the O.P. No. 2 was subjected to demand of dowry and torture through various ways. Notwithstanding the fact that the couple blessed with a child but the torture continued. Subsequently, in the year 2023, O.P. No. 2 was brutally assaulted and she was ousted from the matrimonial home after snatching all the valuables and belongings leading to institution of present complaint case.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the marriage was solemnized in the year 2003 and they also blessed with a child from their wedlock but the present complaint came to be instituted after twenty years by making a frivolous allegation. The O.P. No. 2 also filed a maintenance case bearing no. 149 of 2024, however, later on, the brother and the O.P. No. 2 also filed two criminal cases. It is further contended that be that as it may, the learned jurisdictional court has taken cognizance only under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocates for the State and the O.P. No. 2 vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the case is not that much of simple as has been

3/4 submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, rather the petitioner after twenty years of the marriage, has come with the contact of another lady and solemnized marriage with her and ousted the O.P. No. 2 by snatching all the belongings. The petitioner is a habitual criminal and also assaulted the brother of O.P. No. 2 and transferring all the property in the name of newly wedded wife.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that two F.I.Rs. have been instituted by the brother as well as the O.P. No. 2; besides, the fact that the learned jurisdictional court has taken cognizance only under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act and the O.P. No. 2 is also pursuing her remedy before the family court, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, let the petitioner above named be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gaya in connection with Gaya Complaint Case No. 534

4/4 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.

(Harish Kumar, J) sadique/- U T