IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49708 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-458 Year-2015 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Banka ====================================================== 1. Dhirendra Sah @ Dhiro Sah S/o Late Bacho Sah R/o Village- Mahdewapur, Police Station- Sanhola, District- Bhagalpur 2. Anuj Kumar @ Anoj Kumar S/o Dhirendra Sah @ Dhiro Sah R/o Village- Mahdewapur, Police Station- Sanhola, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Punam Kumari W/o Sachin Kumar, D/o Late Pudin Sah @ Late Fudin Sah R/o vill - Mahdewapur, P.S.- Sanhola, Distt.- Bhagalpur, At present R/o vill - Ahiro, P.S.- Dhoraiya, Distt.- Banka ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 28-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant. It is further submitted that the dispute is matrimonial. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that since Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49708 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026 2/2 petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in a case arising from a complaint case in that event the petitioners ought to have joined the proceeding after issuance of summons on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued on which learned A.P.P. submits that since process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued by the learned trial court in that event it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. and also taking into consideration the fact that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 458 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka/Successor Court. 6. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Kundan/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T