Anshuman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42325 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1776 Year-2024 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPurnia ====================================================== 1.
Anshuman Kumar, Son of Ajit Kumar, Resident of Block A, Plot No 109 Bhawana Niwath Apartment, P.S. Aungonda Chahli, District Banglore (Karnataka).
2.
Ajit Kumar, Son of Late Sukhdev Prasad Gupta, Resident of Balti Karkhana Chowk, P.S.- Mujahidpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur 3.
Nilu Gupta, Wife of Ajit Kumar, Resident of Balti Karkhana Chowk, P.S.- Mujahidpur, Distt.- Bhagalpurr 4.
Kumar Adhyayan @ Adhyayan @ Adhyan, Son of Ajit Kumar, Resident of Balti Karkhana Chowk, P.S.- Mujahidpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Alice @ Alish, D/O- Ajay Kumar Shah, Wife of Anshuman Kumar, Resident of Bhatta Bazar, Lakhan Chowk, P.S.- K. Hat, Distt.- Purnea ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Binod Kumar, APP For the Opp. Party No.2 :
Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-10-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are husband, father-in-law, motherin-law and brother-in-law of opposite party no.2 apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1776 of 2024 wherein cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 85, 109 and 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. After some argument, learned Advocate for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42325 of 2025(3) dt.15-10-2025 2/2 informant apprised this Court that the petitioners have also preferred Cr. Misc. No. 41280 of 2025 against the order taking cognizance and in the said application, the proceeding, qua, above named petitioners, in connection with the present complaint was directed to be stayed, till further order.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that now the petitioners have no apprehension of arrest and, as such, the present anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
5. Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that admittedly there is a stay of the proceedings, but the apprehension of arrest of the petitioners may arise at any point of time. The moment, the quashing application is disposed of and goes against the petitioners, in such circumstances, the petitioners may be accorded liberty to approach this Court, if need arises.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the respective parties, the present application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application, if need arises.
(Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U T