SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4680

PATNA HIGH COURT
S. B. Pd. Singh, J
Uday Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85401 of 2025 | Complaint Case No. 1378C of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Mr. Pramod Kumar, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Ms. Srishti
For the Respondents: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Mr. Anil Kumar

Anticipatory bail may be granted when specific allegations against the applicant are insufficient.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Sections 420, 323, and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, arising from allegations regarding dowry demands. The court finds insufficient evidence directly implicating the petitioner. The primary issues include the validity of the bail request and the applicable legal standards for anticipatory bail. Ultimately, granting bail is deemed appropriate based on the lack of specific allegations against the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. court grants anticipatory bail based on insufficient evidence. (Para 7)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 18-12-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1378C of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 323 and 34 of IPC and 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant, Vijendra Goap, alleged that the marriage of his daughter Sinki Kumari with Pappu Kumar was finalised by the petitioner and other family members, pursuant to which they took various amounts including Rs. 11,000/- for welcome, Rs. 8,000/- for clothes, and later Rs. 2,50,000/-, but thereafter the accused persons demanded an additional amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, and on refusal they misbehaved with the informant and subsequently they neither solemnized marriage nor returned the money.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is quite innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is elder brother of Pappu Kumar (co-accused) and he is living separately from his father and brother since 2019.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. From perusal of complaint petition as well as S. A.

(solemn affirmation), it transpires that neither the money was handed over to the petitioner nor any specific allegation has been levelled against him.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner, above named, be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in connection with Complaint Case No. 1378C of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS .

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top