Bipin Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1 ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶12

6 24-09-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special P.P. Ms. Usha Kumari No.1. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2.

¶14

This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated 24.02.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge (SC/ST Act)-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in A.B.P. No. 296/2024, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 34 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 25.11.2023 registered under Sections 376, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act and Sections ¾ of DP Act.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1458 of 2024(6) dt.24-09-2025 2/3

¶16

It is next submitted that appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that for the last 3 years she was in a physical relationship with the appellant, as appellant had promised to marry her. It is next alleged that on 06.10.2023, informant requested the appellant to marry her when his friend Shubham and his brother Ajit abused her by taking caste name. It is next alleged that informant got an information that the appellant is getting married, accordingly, she came to his house, where family members of the appellant demanded dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and a motorcycle.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the relationship was consensual. It is next submitted that appellant had made it very clear in the beginning itself that his family would not permit marriage because of their different caste affiliation. It is next submitted that informant despite being aware of the said fact still continued in the relationship and when the marriage of the appellant was fixed, the present false case came to be instituted implicating the entire family members. It is also submitted that appellant will not abscond

¶18

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1458 of 2024(6) dt.24-09-2025 3/3

¶19

rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.

¶20

Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant.

¶21

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the order impugned is set aside. Let the appellant, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.

¶23

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶24

amit/-

¶25

U T

Bipin Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitu Kumari @ Nitu Rani Vs the State of Bihar

Rajesh Singh @ Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Ajit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sheikh Chhote @ Abu Sayeed @ MD Abu Sayeed Vs the State of Bihar

Khurshed Alam Vs The State of Bihar