IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64734 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- East Champaran ======================================================

Sachin Kumar Gupta, Son of Motilal Sah, Resident of Village - Rajpur, P.S.-

Keshariya, District - East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rinki Devi, Daughter of Rajendra Sah Wife of Sachin Kumar Gupta, Resident of Village - Rajpur, P.S.- Keshariya, District - East Champaran, presently residing at village - Siswa, P.S.- Banjariya, District - East Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Nityanand, APP For the Opposite party No.2 : Mr. Ravi Raj, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER

3 17-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 3 of 2025 giving rise to Trial No.3131 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant was married to Sachin Kumar Gupta (petitioner). It is alleged that the informant at the time of marriage had given gifts worth Rs.13,00,000/-, however, after the marriage, the petitioner started demanding dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and on account of non-fulfillment of the same, she was assaulted and ousted from the matrimonial house.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and no such occurrence, as alleged by the informant, has taken place. It has further been submitted that there are general and omnibus allegations levelled against the petitioner by the victim. It has next been submitted that the petitioner had never shied away from keeping the informant, however, she happens to be a quarrelsome lady and she on her own left her matrimonial house without the consent of her family members. It has also been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier this case was referred to the Mediation Center, however, the mediation effort has failed. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner carry clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has stated that there is specific allegation upon the petitioner of demand of dowry and torture and even ousting from the matrimonial house. It has further been submitted that the opposite party no.2, i.e., the informant, is ready to reside with the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submits that there is no chance of any settlement between the parties.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 3 of 2025 giving rise to Trial No.3131 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to the following conditions:-

(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close relative.

(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.

(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in viola