Patna High Court
Md. Jafar @ Jafar Alam @ JafarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is to be released on bail upon surrender, as the allegations are general, no intent to cause death is shown, and his personal law permits a second marriage.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Jafar Alam, was charged under Sections 323 and 498‑A IPC for assault and dowry harassment arising from a complaint filed in 2023. He sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand were vague and that his second marriage was permissible under his personal law, thus negating any offence under Section 494 IPC. The State contended that the petitioner’s non‑cooperation, including failure to appear before the trial court and refusal to join mediation, warranted denial of bail. The Court observed that the allegations were general, there was no material indicating an intention to cause death (Section 307 IPC), and personal law allowed the second marriage, thereby finding no basis to refuse bail. Consequently, the Court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon surrender, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under CrPC Section 438(2) and BNSS Section 482(2).
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 323 and 498‑A IPC.
- Whether the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand are sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner can be prosecuted under Section 494 IPC for bigamy given his personal law.
- Whether the petitioner’s non‑appearance and refusal to mediate justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 494, 498-A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- cruelty
- personal law
- bigamy
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 498-A IPC
- bail conditions
- non‑cooperation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23201 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2192 Year-2023 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria
======================================================
Md. Jafar @ Jafar Alam @ Jafar, Son of Jamal, R/o Village- Gadhakat, Ward
No. 08, P.S.- Sikti, District- Araria
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jeba Khatoon, W/o Md. Jafar @ Jafar Alam @ Jafar, R/o Village-Gadhakat,
Ward No. 08, P.S.- Sikti, District- Araria
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Madhav Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State duly assisted by
learned counsel appearing for the complainant/O.P. No.2.
2. The accused/petitioner is named in the complaint
petition and apprehending his arrest in connection with
Complaint Case No.2192C of 2023 in which cognizance has
been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and
498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Allegation against petitioner is to assault the
complainant/O.P. No.2 due to non-fulfilment of further demand
of dowry as raised for cash of Rs.10 lakhs.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
petitioner that petitioner solemnized marriage with another
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23201 of 2025(4) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
women during subsisting his first marriage with complainant. It
is pointed out that the allegation qua physical assault and
demand of dowry appears very much general and omnibus in
nature. It is submitted that raising allegation without any
cogent material that petitioner was under intention to cause
death in itself a cruelty as on basis of available materials, no
cognizance was taken by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate
for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code. It is submitted that no cognizance was also taken
for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian
Penal Code for the reason that petitioner is a Muslim and as per
his personal law, he can solemnize marriage with another
woman subsisting his first marriage as per his personal law.
5. The learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel
appearing for the complainant/O.P. No.2 could not disputed the
aforesaid submissions. It is submitted by learned counsel
appearing for complainant that petitioner is of non-coperative in
nature for the reason that he intentionally not appeared before
the learned trial court and also did not join the mediation
proceeding before this Court. It is submitted that in view of
conduct of petitioner, his prayer of anticipatory bail should be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23201 of 2025(4) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
rejected.
6. Let it be so, as allegation qua committing mental
and physical cruelty appears general and omnibus in nature qua
petitioner, accordingly, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within a
period of four weeks from today, is directed to be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Araria in connection with
Complaint Case No.2192-C of 2023, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’)/under Section 482(2) of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…