Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Arvind SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner with specific monetary and procedural conditions.

Summary

Arvind Singh applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a dowry harassment case under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that after his 2017 marriage, the complainant was subjected to cruelty for non‑payment of dowry. The petitioner denied the allegations and offered to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 to the complainant. The court noted that mediation had previously failed and, considering the petitioner's undertaking, granted anticipatory bail. The bail was conditioned on a Rs. 10,000 bond, two sureties, and the monthly deposit of the maintenance amount into the complainant’s bank account, with cancellation possible upon default.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged dowry harassment under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • dowry harassment
  • Section 498A
  • Dowry Prohibition Act
  • maintenance
  • mediation
  • criminal law
  • family law

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10531 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-649 Year-2022 Thana- KHAGARIA COMPALINT CASE
                                                     District- Khagaria
                 ======================================================
                 Arvind Singh S/o Late Ramdev Singh R/o vill - Gawas Bind Toli, P.o-
                 Peernagara, P.s.- Beldaur, Distt.- Khagaria

                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Babita Devi W/o Arvind Singh, D/o Late Rajo Mahato R/o vill - Gawas
                 Bind Toli, P.o - Peernagara, P.S.- Beldaur, Distt.- Khagaria at present R/o vill
                 - Bind toli Banni, P.O. - Banni, P.S.- Maheshkhut, Distt.- Khagaria

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :     Mr. Priyanshu Ranjan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :     Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, A.P.P.
                 For the O.P. No. 2       :     Ms. Seema Kumari, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   29-06-2026                  Earlier, vide order dated 12.03.2026, the matter was

                   referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patna High

                   Court, Patna, but as per the Mediator’s Report (flag ‘M’), the

                   mediation has failed.

                                2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered

                   for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian

                   Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

                                4. As per prosecution case, marriage of complainant

                   was solemnized with this petitioner in the year 2017. Thereafter,

                   it is alleged that complainant was subjected to torture and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10531 of 2026(3) dt.29-06-2026
                                            2/3




          cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

                       5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while denying

          the allegations levelled against him, submits that petitioner, who

          is husband of the complainant, is ready to keep her with honour

          and safety. Besides this, petitioner is ready to give Rs. 3000/-

          per month to the complainant by way of temporary relief/solace,

          starting from this month, subject to any order passed in

          matrimonial, maintenance or connected proceedings.

                       6. In view of the aforesaid undertaking of learned

          counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready to give Rs.

          3000/- per month to the complainant by way of temporary

          relief/solace, starting from this month, this anticipatory bail

          application is allowed.

                       7. Let the above-named petitioner, in the event of

          arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, 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 learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

          Khagaria in connection with Khagaria Complaint Case No.

          649(C) of 2022, subject to the conditions laid down under

          Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita as

          well as on the following conditions:-
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10531 of 2026(3) dt.29-06-2026
                                                          3/3




                                     ‘(1) Complainant would file an affidavit before the

                        court below and bring on record her savings bank account

                        number for its communication to the petitioner.

                                     (2)    Petitioner       would       deposit   the   aforesaid

                        maintenance amount per month in the savings bank account of

                        the complainant.

                                     (3) In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the

                        maintenance amount for two consecutive months, the court

                        below would be at liberty to cancel the bail-bond.

                                     (4) 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)
Navya/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.