IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20896 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2015 Thana- ANDHRAMATH District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1. Ram Balak Mandal S/o- Mahavir Mandal Village- Dahapatti Ps- Ghoghardiha Dist- Madhubani 2. Ram Chandra Mandal S/o- Late Mahavir Mandal Village- Dahapatti Ps- Ghoghardiha Dist- Madhubani 3. Ram Gulam Mandal S/o- Late Mahavir Mandal Village- Dahapatti Ps- Ghoghardiha Dist- Madhubani 4. Upendri Devi W/o- Ram Balak Mandal Village- Dahapatti Ps- Ghoghardiha Dist- Madhubani 5. Tetari Devi W/o- Ram Gulam Mandal Village- Dahapatti Ps- Ghoghardiha Dist- Madhubani 6. Surjeet Mandal S/o- Shriram Mandal Village- Dahapatti Ps- Ghoghardiha Dist- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Renu Devi W/o- Manjeet Kumar Mandal Village- Dahapatti Ps- Ghoghardiha Dist- Madhubani, R/o- Matahi Ps- Anthramath Dist- Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baleshwar Kamat, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 2 30-04-2025 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Andhramath P.S. Case No. 74 of 2015 for the offence under sections 498(A) of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act lodged on 08.9.2015 by the informant, Renu Devi. 3. Allegation by Renu Devi, the informant, is that she Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20896 of 2025(2) dt.30-04-2025 2/2 was married in March 2014 but was always tortured for dowry and after some time, for non fulfilment of dowry, after assaulting, she was thrown out of the matrimonial house and since then, she is living in her parent’s home. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are the family members and not the husband. 5. Learned APP on the other hand opposes the prayer submitting that ten years after the FIR was lodged, the petitioners are moving before this Court and the same is certainly abuse of the process of the law. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioners have chosen to move before this Court after ten years of the FIR, it would be appropriate that they seek bail. 7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. Adnan/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U T