IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7919 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-455 Year-2022 Thana- JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- Jehanabad ======================================================

Satyendra Paswan, S/o Umesh Paswan, Resident of Village- Dahour Bigha, Post- Telhara, P.S.- Telhara, Dist.- Nalanda, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sushma Devi, W/o Satyendra Paswan, R/o Dahour Bigha, Post- Telhara, P.S.- Telhara, Dist.- Nalanda, Bihar- 801306, Present Address- Sushma Devi D/o Rajkumar Paswan R/o Bauri, P.O. Bauri Beldari, P.S.- Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Rai, Adv.

For the Informant : Mr. Binod Kumar, Adv For the State : Mr. Bharat Lal, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 17-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 455 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498(A), 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant was married to the accused Satyendra Paswan (petitioner) on 29.04.2015 and substantial dowry was given. After one year, the husband and his family subjected her to continuous cruelty, assault, and harassment for additional dowry (Rs. 2,25,000 for bullet motorcycle). She was beaten even during pregnancies and forced to live at her parental home, where her children were born. Despite a compromise, the abuse continued, causing serious health issues. On 23.10.2021 and again on 23.07.2022, the accused allegedly assaulted her brutally, the latter incident rendering her unconscious without medical treatment. When her father attempted to meet her, he was prevented, and only after police intervention she was rescued and taken to her parental home for treatment.

4. The main submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel are that O.P. No. 2 is the wife of the petitioner, and their marriage took place in the year 2015, the allegation of physical torture made by O.P. No. 2 in her complaint is not supported by any medical evidence, and the petitioner is ready and willing to keep his wife.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submits that the petitioner has subjected O.P. No. 2 to various forms of torture and that he has an illicit relationship with a lady named in the complaint. It is further submitted that on one occasion, when O.P. No. 2 suffered a heart disease, she was assaulted by the petitioner. There is also a specific allegation that the petitioner demanded a Bullet motorcycle from O.P. No. 2 and her parental family members. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not taken any steps to maintain his wife and her two minor children, who are presently residing with O.P. No. 2, despite a judicial order having been passed by the concerned Family Court. O.P. No. 2 is facing great hardship in maintaining herself as well as her two minor children, which also amounts to a form of cruelty.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the seriousness of the allegations of cruelty and torture made by O.P. No. 2 in her complaint and in the statement recorded by her before the Judicial Magistrate, in my opinion, petitioner does not deserve to the relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer stands rejected. (Shailendra Singh, J)

Rajiv/-

U T