Rakesh Kumar Mandal @ Rakesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16625 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1953 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria
                 ======================================================
                 Rakesh Kumar Mandal @ Rakesh Kumar, son of Manoj Mandal, Resident of
                 Village- Mahamadiya, Ward No 13, P.S.- Hasanganj, Dist -Katihar

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Neha Kumari, Wife of Rakesh Kumar, Resident of Village- Rahikpur, Ward
                 no. 01, P.S.- R.S., Dist- Araria

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the State           :       Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP
                 For the Opp. Party No.2 :       Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   24-06-2026                 Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Advocate

                   for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. The opposite

                   party no.2 is represented through Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh,

                   learned Advocate.

                               2. The petitioner happens to be the husband of

                   opposite party no.2 is apprehending his arrest in connection with

                   Complaint Case No. 1953 of 2024 wherein cognizance has been

                   taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the

                   Indian Penal Code.

                               3. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with

                   opposite party no.2 in the year 2023 and at the time of marriage,

                   a substantive amount was taken in dowry, besides the other
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16625 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
                                            2/3




          articles. Notwithstanding with the aforesaid fact, the accused

          persons, including the petitioner, kept on demanding dowry and

          failure to satisfy the demand, the complainant was subjected to

          torture in various ways.

                       4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that

          the petitioner has always been ready to keep his wife with full

          honour and dignity, but it was the complainant, who was not

          ready to consumate her conjugal life, as is evident from the

          report of the Mediator. The bona fide of the petitioner is also

          writ large, as the petitioner has filed a matrimonial case for

          restitution of conjugal life under Section 9 of the Hindu

          Marriage Act, but it is the complainant, who refused to

          discharge the marital obligation.

                       5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State and

          the opposite party no.2 opposed the bail application and submit

          that because of the torture being given by the petitioner, the

          complainant has been facing difficulty to reside with him.

                       6. Having considered the submissions advanced by

          the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note

          of the fact the cognizance has been taken only under Section

          498A of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner has shown his

          bona fide and is ready to keep his wife with all honour and
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16625 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
                                                         3/3




                       dignity, but the complainant has not accepted his request, let the

                       petitioner, named above, in the event of his arrest or surrender

                       before the court below within four weeks from the date of

                       receipt/production of a copy of this order, be released on bail on

                       furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with

                       two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

                       learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection

                       with Complaint Case No. 1953 of 2024, subject to the condition

                       as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik

                       Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the further condition that one of

                       the bailors shall be the own/close relative of the petitioner.



                                                   (Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-

U        T