SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3683

PATNA HIGH COURT
PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J
Jayant Kumar @ Jayant Kumar Sah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20705 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Mishra
For the Respondents: Mr.Madan Kumar, A.P.P., Mr. RS Mishra

The court emphasized the conditions under which bail can be granted amidst allegations of dowry harassment, balancing the rights of the accused and the victim's welfare.

Headnote:In this judgment, the High Court addressed the provisions under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, elucidating those concerning dowry harassment allegations. The facts indicate that the petitioner, husband of the opposite party, faced serious accusations including demanding dowry and subjecting the opposite party to cruelty, ultimately leading to her eviction. Following contentions and assurances related to interim financial relief to the opposite party, the court granted bail to the petitioner under specific conditions post an unsuccessful mediation attempt. The court framed the significant issue of whether the petitioner could be granted bail in light of allegations of dowry harassment, determining that given the circumstances and proposed conditions, bail would be granted.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

4 27-01-2026 Pursuant to order of this Court, the matter was referred to Mediation & Conciliation Center of Patna High Court, but the dispute between the parties could not be resolved through the process of mediation and as such, mediation failed (Report kept at flag ‘M’).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the opposite party no.2.

3. The petitioner, who is husband of opposite party no.2, apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the D.P. Act .

4. Prosecution case in brief is that opposite party no.2 was married with the petitioner. After marriage, this petitioner along with other accused persons started demanding dowry and on non-fulfillment of the same they used to assault and torture her. Lastly, accused persons ousted opposite party no.2 from her matrimonial house.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while denying the allegations, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case because he happens to be husband of opposite party no.2. Petitioner is ready to keep her with honour and safety. Besides this, petitioner is ready to give Rs. 3000/-per month to opposite party no.2 by way of temporary relief/solace, starting from this month, subject to any order passed in matrimonial, maintenance or connected proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no.2 oppose the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner, being husband of opposite party no.2, in connivance with his family members, subjected her to harassment and cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and also ousted her to her parents’ house. It is further submitted that she has no means of livelihood and is on the verge of starvation.

7. In view of the undertaking of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as condition of opposite party no.2, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let the petitioner, above-named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Complaint Case No. 86C/ 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 as well as on the following conditions:-

(i) Opposite party no.2. would file an affidavit before the court below and bring on record her saving bank account number for its communication to the petitioner.

(ii) Petitioner would deposit the aforesaid interim relief per month in the saving bank account of the opposite party no.2.

(iii) In case, petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount of temporary relief/solace for two consecutive months, the court below would be at liberty to cancel the bail-bond.

(iv) The aforementioned payment will be subject to any order passed in matrimonial, maintenance or connected proceedings. The present order, in no way, will preclude the parties to resolve the issue otherwise.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top