Patna High Court
Sushil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
Matrimonial disputes are private conflicts and should be referred to mediation, with interim pre‑arrest bail granted subject to the outcome of mediation.
Summary
The petitioner, Sushil Kumar, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case alleging dowry‑related torture under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. He contended that the allegations were false and sought to resolve the matrimonial dispute through mediation. The Court observed that matrimonial disputes are private matters and not offences against society, citing the Apex Court’s pronouncements. Accordingly, the Court directed the District Court to refer the matter to the District Mediation Centre and granted interim protection to the petitioner, stipulating that bail would be formalised by the District Court based on the mediation outcome. The application was disposed of with directions for mediation and possible withdrawal of criminal cases if an amicable settlement is reached.
Issues considered
- Whether a pre‑arrest bail can be granted in a matrimonial dispute alleged under criminal provisions relating to dowry harassment
- Whether the matter should be referred to mediation before proceeding with criminal trial
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- matrimonial dispute
- dowry harassment
- mediation
- criminal law
- BNS
- Dowry Prohibition Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12035 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Sushil Kumar S/o- Late Nagina Prasad, Village- Laxmipur, PS- Okari Dist-
Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mamta Kumari W/o- Sushil Kumar, D/o- Abdhesh Prasad R/v- Barma Ps-
Pali Dist- Jehanabad
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Ranjan Ray, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jai Narain Thakur, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025 for the offence punishable
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 85 and 3(5) of the
BNS and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
3. The allegation is of subjecting the O.P. No.2 to
various sorts of torture and cruelty for non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the O.P.
No.2 and the allegation levelled against him is false and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12035 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/5
concocted. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a
sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts
into hatred and the parties can be allowed to ponder to reconcile
their dispute outside the court. He submitted that the matter be
referred for mediation.
5. Learned APP for the State submitted that
opportunity shall be given to the parties to reconcile their
dispute amicably.
6. The petitioner’s counsel informs that he has
received instruction that the petitioner also wants to reconcile
the dispute by way of mediation.
7. The petitioner has agreed to appear before the
learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 17.03.2026 for
resolving the dispute by way of mediation.
8. Heard the parties.
9. This Court finds that the matrimonial dispute is not
an offense against the society rather a matrimonial dispute is a
private conflict between spouses and does not inherently
constitute an offence against society, as has been held by the
Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,
reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675, in paragraph nos. 12 and 13
which is as under:-
“12. The special features in such
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12035 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/5
matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of
the court to encourage genuine settlements of
matrimonial disputes.
13. The observations made by this Court,
though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v.
L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733]
are very apt for determining the approach required to be
kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It
was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony,
the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple
to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in
the criminal case. There are many other reasons which
need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder
over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably
by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court
of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in
that process the parties lose their “young” days in
chasing their “cases” in different courts.
10. The petitioner has desired to appear before the
learned District Court on or before 17.03.2026, so that the
matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
11. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to refer the matter before the learned Mediator
of the District Mediation Center by issuing notice to O.P. No.2
and fixing a date for appearance of the parties to give effect to
“Mediation for the Nation 2.0”.
12. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
concerned, upon appearance of the parties, shall make his/her
best efforts to settle the dispute amicably and thereafter submit
his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12035 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
4/5
within a period of three months, till then, no coercive action
shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the
aforesaid case.
13. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably
or arrive at a mutual settlement, in light of the law laid down by
the Apex Court as referred hereinabove, the petitioner is
required to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
14. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear on 17.03.2026 before the learned District Court or any
date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force.
15. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the
complainant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim
protection granted to the petitioner shall continue and the trial
shall proceed in accordance with law.
16. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that
case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. Then also, petitioner
is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
17. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12035 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
5/5
have lodged against each other.
18. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority and the
Patna High Court Mediation Centre for the purpose of record.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.