IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail petitions are maintainable for offences with a penalty of up to seven years, and jurisdictional courts must adjudicate these applications rather than merely disposing them without consideration.

ORDER :

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 4 82 B.N.S.S. / 438 of the Cr.PC for anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.2383 of 2024 by the Complainant/ O.P. No.2 herein against her husband/petitioner herein and his family members for proposed offence under Sections 3 23 , 341, 498(A), 324, 504, 312 IPC , Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 67 of the I.T. Act .

2. However, after inquiry by learned Judicial Magistrate, cognizance only of the offence punishable under Section 498(A) has been taken against the husband/Petitioner herein.

3. Subsequently, the Petitioner/Aashik Kumar Shah preferred anticipatory bail petition bearing no. 3229 of 2025 before learned Sessions Court, East Champaran at Motihari. However, the same has been disposed of by learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 08.07.2025 without rejecting or allowing it. The operative portion of the said order dated 08.07.2025 reads as follows:

“Having heard both sides and perusal of the certified copy of the complaint petition, it appears that this case is based on complaint petition and vide summoning order dated 04-06-2025, the learned Court below has found a prima facie case U/S 498-A of the IPC is made out against the petitioner-accused, which is punishable within Seven years Imprisonment. Hence, in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar .. Vs.. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and M.A. No. 2034 of 2022 in M.A. No. 1849 in S.L.P. (Cri) No. 5191 of 2021 titled Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, this anticipatory bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused Aashik Kumar Sah is disposed of.”

4. The allegation as emerges from the statement of the Complainant before learned Judicial Magistrate during inquiry, is that the marriage of the complainant, who is the O.P. No.2 herein, was solemnized with the petitioner herein on 11.03.2024 and after one or two months of the marriage, demand of money started on the part of her husband/petitioner for doing business and on account of non-fulfillment of the same, she was subjected to beating and she was even threatened to be burnt. Even a panchayati was held but the petitioner/husband refused to keep her in his matrimonial house and, hence, the complainant has been living at her maike (parental home) since 10.08.2024 and to Court question, she has stated that she wants to live with her husband/petitioner and she has been pregnant for nine months and her husband is not talking to her since she has been living at her maike.

5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that learned Sessions Court has erroneously not decided the anticipatory bail petition of the Petitioner on merit by rejecting or allowing it. He has simply disposed it of in the light of Arnesh Kumar case (supra) and Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. [2021(10) SCC 773] , whereas in both the cited judicial precedents, Hon’ble Supreme Court has nowhere held that anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable or not required to be adjudicated by the jurisdictional courts in cases related with offence punishable up to seven years of imprisonment.

7. Learned Sessions Judge has also passed the order dated 08.07.2025 contrary to Navneet Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar as reported in 2025 SCC Online Pat 2973, passed by this Court, wherein it has been clearly held that anticipatory bail petition is maintainable despite Section 41 and 41-A Cr.PC /35 of the B.N.S.S. , 2023 and in Arnesh