IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.788 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-848 Year-2025 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ======================================================

Guddu Kumar S/o Avdhesh Ravidas Resident of Village- Khushrupur, Bhuski, Ward No- 09, Police Station- Khushrupur, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Manki Devi W/o Late Chandeshwar Mochi R/o Harnichak, P.S.-

Phulwarisharif, Distt.- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, A.P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

3 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in Phulwarisharif P. S.

Case No. 848 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(1), 115(2), 316(2), 318(4), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant has alleged that while searching for a suitable groom for her daughter Priyanka Bharti, she was introduced to this petitioner, who was allegedly working in the Railways, through a mediator. After meetings between the families on 21.07.2024 and 23.07.2024, the accused persons agreed to the marriage and Chheka ceremony was performed, during which the informant paid a total sum of Rs, 10,00,000/- in cash as gift/advance, supported by photographs and video. Thereafter, the accused persons repeatedly avoided fixing the marriage date and, on the pretext of house renovation, demanded and obtained further money. When the informant later on visited their house on 21.05.2025 to finalize the marriage, the accused persons demanded an additional amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and stated that they had another proposal offering Rs. 20,00,000/-. Upon demanding return of the amount already paid, the informant and her son were abused and her son was assaulted, and the accused flatly refused both to solemnize the marriage and to return the money. It is further alleged that due to the accused persons’ acts of cheating, abuse, assault, and threats, the informant’s daughter suffered humiliation, loss of social prestige, and was even instigated to commit suicide.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case only with a view to pressurize him to solemnized marriage with the daughter of informant. Petitioner has not received any money from the informant and informant has not disclosed as to how the alleged Rs. 10 lacs were paid to the petitioner. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that he along with other accused persons took Rs. 10 lacs from the informant to solemnize marriage and thereafter refused to marry.

6. Considering the nature and seriousness of accusation, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

Navya/-

U T