Wajid Ansari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36594 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2018 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- West Champaran ====================================================== Wajid Ansari, S/o Narul Hoda Ansari, Resident of village - Mobin Tola Vishun Purwa, P.S.- Lauria, Distt.- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Amrina Khatoon, W/o Wajid Ansari, D/o Late Maqbool Ansari R/o village - Mobin Tola Vishun Purwa, P.S.- Lauria, Distt.- West Champaran ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mrs. Archana Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The accused/petitioner is named in the complaint and apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. P-78 of 2018, 63C of 2018 in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Allegation against petitioner, who is the husband, is to commit mental and physical cruelty upon complainant due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36594 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026 2/3 raised for cash of Rs.50,000/-.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that allegation qua demanding dowry in terms of complaint petition of para-2 appearing very much general and omnibus in nature. It is pointed out that the allegation against petitioner is to burn the body of complainant with cigarette but no medical report in support of allegation is annexed with complaint petition. It is pointed out that the complainant is under habit to lodge such false complaint against petitioner and his family and so, she lodged Lauriya P.S. Case No.118 of 2015, which was compromised but, subsequently, the present false complaint case was lodged without having any cogent material. It is further submitted that complaint is not support by affidavit and therefore, the same also appears in violation of legal principles as set out through Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2015) 6 SCC 287].
5. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact as complainant is under habit to lodge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36594 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026 3/3 such case against petitioner and his family members, coupled with the fact that allegation of demanding dowry is appearing very much general and omnibus against the petitioner, accordingly, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Complaint Case No.P 78 of 2018, 63C of 2018 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'CrPC')/under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNSS').
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) Sanjeet/- U T