Vishu Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71533 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-263 Year-2025 Thana- BEUR District- Patna ====================================================== VISHU RAY S/O RAMDEV RAY R/o 70 Feet Road, Shiv Shakti Path, Road no. 3, P.S.- Beur, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Y.C.Verma, Sr.Advocate : Mr.Jata Shankar Jha,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anish Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-01-2026 Heard Mr. Y.C.Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel for the informant and Mr.Anish Chandra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 263 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 25.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner has been granted privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.52431 of 2025 with certain conditions including
2/5 Condition No.iii that "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." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of lack of knowledge and confusion by the Pairvikar of the petitioner, the petitioner has not mentioned his one criminal antecedent which is pending, although, the petitioner is on police bail. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a petition bearing Cr.Misc. No. 68766/2025 for modification of order dated 21.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
52431 of 2025 on the ground that due to inadvertent mistake that the petitioner has not mentioned his one criminal antecedent in paragraph-3 of the bail petition as that the Pairvikar of the case had no knowledge about the criminal antecedent and the modification application bearing Cr.Misc. No. 68766/2025 was dismissed by order dated 26.09.2025.
4. According to prosecution case, the informant was married on 09.05.2022 and at the time of marriage, a Scorpio
3/5 car, jewellery, household articles and Rs. 10,00,000/- were given as dowry. After seven to eight months of marriage, the accused persons, namely Amarjeet @ Amit Kumar (husband), Pramila Devi (mother-in-law), Vishu Ray (father-in-law), Puja Kumari (nanad) and Tutu Kumar (devar), allegedly demanded an additional Rs. 10,00,000/- for house construction and business expansion and subjected the deceased to cruelty on non-fulfilment of the demand. On 24.05.2025 at about 10:00 A.M.,the deceased informed the informant over phone that she was being assaulted and threatened with death, and the same evening the informant was informed by Pramila Devi and Puja Kumari that his sister had died.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that he is father-in-law of the deceased. From a bare perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that although petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but there is no specific allegation of any assault, overt act or demand of dowry attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioner and the son of the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the deceased is in judicial custody since
4/5 15.07.2025.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the occurrence had taken place within seven years of marriage and apart from that, there is allegation against all the accused persons in the F.I.R. Further submits that the petitioner carries one more case other than the present one, as mentioned in para3 of the present bail petition.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 learned A.C.J.M.-I, Patna in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 263 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other 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
5/5 Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(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/her 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) Nitesh/- U T