Patna High Court
Chandan Kumar Jaiswal @ Chandan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond and surety conditions, as the complaint lacked the requisite affidavit support.
Summary
Chandan Kumar Jaiswal was accused in a 2023 complaint under Section 498A of the IPC for alleged dowry‑related cruelty and retention of stridhan. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, contrary to the ratio in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and that the complainant had left the matrimonial home of her own volition. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the alleged offences. The Court observed that the prima facie allegations were not substantiated by an affidavit and noted the petitioner's clean antecedents and prior filing of a restitution suit under the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail, subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the complaint under Section 498A is not supported by an affidavit.
- Whether the complaint is frivolous and intended to harass the petitioner.
- Applicability of Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. in granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Hindu Marriage Act — s. 9
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- Section 498A
- affidavit requirement
- criminal procedure
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Hindu Marriage Act
- false complaint
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27057 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2023 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- East Champaran
======================================================
Chandan Kumar Jaiswal @ Chandan Kumar S/o Kanhaiya Jaiswal Resident
of Village - Bhawanipur, P.S. - Sangrampur, District - East Champaran,
Motihari.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Geeta Kumari Devi W/o Chandan Kumar Jaiswal R/o Resident of Village -
Wazitpur, P.S. - Madhuban, District - East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 27-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the complaint
petition, is apprehending his arrest in connection with
Complaint Case No. 226 of 2023 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is to commit
physical and mental cruelty upon the complainant along with
family members due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry as
raised for one four-wheeler vehicle. It is also alleged that
petitioner and his family members have also kept the stridhan of
the complainant while she was ousted from her matrimonial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27057 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
2/3
home.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that allegation as raised through complaint petition
cannot be accepted true as same was not made on affidavit
contrary to the legal ratio settled through Priyanka Srivastava
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2015 (6) SCC 287]. It is submitted
that complainant herself left her matrimonial home and joined
her parental home due to her temperamental attitude. It is
submitted that even the petitioner lodged a case under section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal life and
also to save the marriage with complainant much prior to
lodging of complaint case i.e. September 2019. Knowing the
fact, in planned and formulated manner, the present complaint
case was filed against the petitioner just to harass him and his
family members. Petitioner claimed clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as prima facie allegation not supported by
affidavit, as discussed aforesaid, accordingly, above-named
petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of
four weeks from this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27057 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
3/3
furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned J.M. F.C., East Champaran, Motihari/concerned court in
connection with Complaint Case No. 226 of 2023, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…