Patna High Court
CR. MISC./40581/2026 of Rajesh Ray Vs The State of Bihar on 13 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40581 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-588 Year-2016 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District- Vaishali ====================================================== Rajesh Ray S/o Akhileshwar Ray Resident of Village - Bajitpur Chak Kasturi, Tola
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40581 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-588 Year-2016 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District- Vaishali ======================================================
Rajesh Ray S/o Akhileshwar Ray Resident of Village - Bajitpur Chak Kasturi, Tola - Chakwa Sahdei, Police Station - Desari District - Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar
2.
Lilu Devi W/o Rajesh Ray D/o Surendra Ray, R/o Village - Jagdishpur, P.S - Jandaha, District - Vaishali
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr.Ranjeet Kumar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Sangeeta Sharma, APP
Mr. Dharmendar Kumar Paswan, Adv
Mr. Amar Kumar, adv
Ms. Deepshikha, Adv
Me. Suraj Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
13-08-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ranjeet Kumar; learned A.P.P. for the State, Ms Sangeeta Sharma and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No. 2, Sri Dharmendar Kuma Paswan.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 379, 504, 506, 494, 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No. 2 submits that the OP No. 2 was married to the petitioner in the year 2009 and petitioner after marriage went outside the State for earning and did not return; and in the year 2015, she came to know that he had performed his second marriage.
4. The said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No. 2 is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, but the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that even the OP No. 2 performed her second marriage after 2015, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No. 2 submits that OP No. 2 had a girl child from the petitioner and since petitioner performed his second marriage hence she had no option but to perform her second marriage so that her second husband takes care of her and the child but after performing her second marriage, her second husband is not willing to take care of the child who presently is minor aged about 12 years and is residing with her maternal grand-parents, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner does not dispute that the child is his and thus is willing to take responsibility of the child, it is also submitted that petitioner for maintenance of the child shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month, which shall commence from 27-8-2026, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No. 2 submits that since the child is staying with her maternal grand-parents as such bank account shall be opened in her name under guardianship and the account number shall be communicated to the learned counsel for the petitioner on his WhatsApp and the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to communicate the same to the petitioner so that the monthly maintenance as agreed commences from 27-8-2026.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No. 2 submits that if petitioner does not credit the amount of maintenance for the child as agreed in that event what will happen, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said submission has been made based on instruction of the petitioner and if the petitioner will breach the undertaking given to this Court, the consequence will follow.
6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that petitioner will ensure education and marriage of the child also.
7. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Complaint Case No. 588 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
8. However, it is made clear that OP No. 2 shall be at liberty to file an application before this court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner, in the event if the petitioner does not deposit the monthly maintenance as agreed for two consecutive months in the account of the child.
Sumit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T