Bablu Gupta @ Bablu Kumar @ Ravi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86532 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sheohar ====================================================== Bablu Gupta @ Bablu Kumar @ Ravi S/O Bangali Shah R/O Village- Kaswa Kadamwa, P.O- Kadamwa, P.S- Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran, Bihar- 845303.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Khushabu Kumari @ Khushboo Kumari W/O Bablu Kumar, D/O Shri Nimichand Sah Presently residing at Ward No. 13, Vishvambharpur, P.STariyani, Dist.- Sheohar, Bihar- 847304. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Prashant Raj, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Anil Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Anand Kishore, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that this petitioner, who happens to be husband of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2, along with other F.I.R. named

2/4 accused persons, tortured and harassed the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits and petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. While denying the allegations, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case merely because he is husband of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2. As a matter of fact, at no point of time, petitioner committed torture or harassment with the complainant and neither demanded dowry. Moreover, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sheohar vide order dated 24.11.2025 passed under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. in Maintenance Case No. 33 of 2025 has directed this petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 and in compliance of the said order, petitioner has already paid Rs. 20,000/- to the informant and undertakes to pay rest of Rs. 20,000/- as arrears of maintenance till March, 2026 and further undertakes to continue paying the same till further orders. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

3/4 the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation, clean antecedents and aforesaid undertaking of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.

7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named petitioner be enlarged 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 Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar in connection with Sheohar Mahila P.S. Case No. 39 of 2025, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., along with the following terms and conditions:

"(A.) Informant/Opposite Party No. 2 would file an affidavit before the court below and bring on record her saving bank account number for its communication to the petitioner.

(B.) Rest amount i.e. Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) shall be paid in the bank account of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 in two equal installments amounting to Rs. 10,000/- each within a period of three months from the date of furnishing bailbond. (C.) In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated time, the court

4/4 below would be at liberty to cancel the bail bond." (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T