Patna High Court

Arti KumariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 January 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

The application for cancellation of anticipatory bail is rejected, and the bail remains in effect.

Summary

The petitioner, Arti Kumari, sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party, Avinash Kumar, in a criminal case under Section 498A IPC concerning alleged dowry harassment. The parties had attempted mediation, initially agreeing to live together, but the mediation later failed as the husband refused to cohabit. The petitioner argued that the bail should be cancelled given the breakdown of marital relations. The High Court examined the legal standards for cancelling anticipatory bail, noting that cancellation requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances distinct from those considered for granting bail. Finding no such circumstances and observing the efforts made towards reconciliation, the Court rejected the application for cancellation, allowing the anticipatory bail to remain in force.

Issues considered

What are the legal criteria for cancelling anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC?
Whether the failure of marital mediation and ongoing matrimonial discord constitute sufficient grounds to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused in a Section 498A case?

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 498A

Subjects

anticipatory bail
cancellation of bail
Section 498A IPC
marital discord
mediation
High Court
bail parameters

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2798 of 2025
                     Arising out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2023 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Arti Kumari, W/o Avinash Kumar @ Avinash Kumar Verma, Resident of Vil-
                 lage- Rakasia, P.S.- Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Avinash Kumar @ Avinash Kumar Verma, S/o Ram Prasad Mahto, Resident
                 of Village- Lala Bhadsara, P.S.- Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. S.K. Lal, Sr. Advocate
                                                 Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                 For the State           :       Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   16-01-2026                    Heard Mr. S.K. Lal, learned senior counsel for the pe-

                   titioner and learned APP for the State.

                                  2. The present application for cancellation of anticipa-

                   tory bail has been filed against the order dated 13.11.2024

                   passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III,

                   Danapur, Patna in A.B.P. No. 843 of 2024 in connection with

                   Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 282 of 2023 whereby and whereun-

                   der anticipatory bail was granted to the opposite party no. 2.

                                  3. It has been argued by learned senior counsel for the

                   petitioner that the case was registered under Section 498 A IPC

                   and the petitioner being the husband had earlier entered into a

                   mediation proceeding wherein he had agreed to take his wife
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2798 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
                               2/3




along with him at his place of job with promise to keep her with

full dignity and honour. The matter came up again before the

mediation centre and vide Annexure-P3, which is the mediation

report dated 22.08.2025, it was recorded that they were staying

together peacefully as husband and wife, whereafter the couple

was to report after 40 days. The mediation report dated

30.09.2024 (Annexure-4) however indicates that the parties

were unable to stay together and the husband had virtually re-

fused to stay with his wife, as such the mediation proceedings

between the parties had failed.

          4. Taking into consideration the fact that the order

dated 13.11.2024 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is a

well-considered order considering the outcome of the mediation

proceeding and considering that it is a case of matrimonial dis-

cord between the parties, I see no good reason to interfere with

the order of the anticipatory bail granted to the Opposite Party

No. 2 by the learned Court concerned in view of the settled law

that parameters of consideration for allowing the prayer for can-

cellation of bail stands on a different level than that of granting

bail and that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are

required for cancelling the bail once granted. In absence of any

such overwhelming circumstances and even taking note of the
                      Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2798 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
                                          3/3




           efforts taken towards reconciliation, which eventually failed de-

           spite the efforts made by the O.P. No. 2 also, the present appli-

           cation for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to O.P. No. 2

           stands rejected.



                                  (Soni Shrivastava, J)
Vikash/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…