Surendra Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42637 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2026 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
Surendra Ray Son of Naresh Ray Resident of Village- Gopalpur, P.S.- Shivsagar, District- Rohtas, at present Mohalla- Gajradh, Gorakshini, P.S.- Sasaram (T), District- Rohtas.
2.
Sumit Ray @ Sumit Kumar Son of Surendra Ray Resident of VillageGopalpur, P.S.- Shivsagar, District- Rohtas, at present Mohalla- Gajradh, Gorakshini, P.S.- Sasaram (T), District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Rumjhum Kumari Wife of Amit Ray, D/o Late Vishwanath Pandey Resident of Mohalla- Gajradh, Gorakshini, P.S.- Sasaram (T), District- Rohtas, at present Village- Dhajahuha, P.S.- Chouri, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. (Dr.) Kumar Uday Pratap, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-07-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 85, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of four cases and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of three cases but then the said cases were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42637 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026 2/3 instituted by the daughters-in-law and villagers. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that she was married to Amit on 23.04.2024 and after marriage, for few days, she was kept well in the house but thereafter the accused persons started demanding dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs and for nonfullfilment of the demands she was tortured and even they had earlier burnt her hand for which she was treated and has evidence regarding that. It is next alleged that the accused persons including the petitioners ousted her from her matrimonial home for non-fullfilment of dowry demand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case being father-in-law and brother-in-law of the informant. It is further submitted that though it is alleged that her hand was burnt but no FIR came to be instituted. It is further submitted that whenever any dispute arises in between the husband and the wife, the entire family members are implicated in a mechanical manner with general, omnibus and ornamental allegation. It is also submitted that if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, the petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42637 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026 3/3
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, let 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 Sasaram Town Model P.S. Case No. 01 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikram/- U T