Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sahjad AnsariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The Court held that the matrimonial dispute is a private matter, not a societal offence, and therefore directed mediation and conditional pre‑arrest bail.

Summary

Shahjad Ansari applied for pre‑arrest bail in a dowry‑related case (Buxar Mahila PS Case No. 39 of 2025) alleging that the charges under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85 and 3(5) of the BNS Act and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act were false. Both parties expressed willingness to resolve the matrimonial dispute through mediation. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that matrimonial matters are private conflicts, directed the matter to the District Mediation Centre and granted interim protection to the petitioner, ordering that bail be released on terms set by the district court. The court stipulated that the interim protection would lapse if the petitioner failed to appear for mediation, and that an amicable settlement would require withdrawal of any criminal cases. The application was consequently disposed of with the bail conditions pending mediation.

Issues considered

  • Whether a pre‑arrest bail can be granted in a dowry‑related criminal case that stems from a matrimonial dispute
  • Whether the matrimonial dispute should be referred to mediation before proceeding with criminal prosecution

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • pre‑arrest bail
  • dowry harassment
  • matrimonial dispute
  • mediation
  • criminal procedure
  • family law

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3093 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Buxar
                 ======================================================
                 Sahjad Ansari, Son of Tasauwar Ansari Resident of village- Saraya Ujiyar
                 Ghat, Ps- Narahi, Krantadih O.P., Dist- Ballia, U.P.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Phuljahan Begum Wife of Shahjad Ansari, D/o Azadi Ansari, Resident of
                 village- Khalasai Muhalla, P.S.- Buxar (T), Dist- Buxar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP.
                 For the Informant        :       Mr. Neerad Parashar, Advocate.
                                                  Ms. Arati Kumari, Advocate.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   01-04-2026                       Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the

                   O.P. No.2.

                                2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection

                   with Buxar Mahila P.S. Case No. 39 of 2025 for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3093 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
                                            2/5




          No.2 and the allegation levelled against him is false and

          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 counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.

          No.2 and learned APP for the State jointly submitted that

          opportunity may be given to the parties to reconcile their dispute

          amicably.

                       6. The petitioner’s counsel also informs that he has

          received instruction that the petitioner also wants to reconcile

          the dispute by way of mediation.

                       7. The parties have agreed to appear before the

          learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on or before 17.04.2026 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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3093 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
                                            3/5




          reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675, in paragraph nos. 12 and 13

          which is as under:-

                                               “12. The special features in such
                                  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 parties have willingly desired to appear

          before the learned District Court on or before 17.04.2026, 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3093 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
                                            4/5




          best efforts to settle the dispute amicably and thereafter submit

          his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well

          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 17.04.2026 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 informant

          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.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3093 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
                                                       5/5




                                  17. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,

                     then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they

                     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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.