Patna High Court
Shailendra MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner must be made available before the police and that the arrest must adhere to the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, leading to the disposal of the anticipatory bail application without granting bail.
Summary
Shailendra Mandal filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a complaint (No.111C/2021) alleging offences under IPC sections 498A, 323, 341, 379 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4. The wife, Priyanka Kumari, alleged dowry demand, pregnancy and non‑acceptance of the child, while both parties claimed the other had entered a second marriage, making reconciliation impossible. The High Court examined whether the arrest and detention complied with the Supreme Court's guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and the subsequent directives in Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, which require strict adherence to Section 41 CrPC criteria for arrest in offences punishable up to seven years. Relying on these precedents and a Patna High Court memo, the Court directed the petitioner to make himself available before the police and applied the Arnesh Kumar safeguards. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was disposed of without granting relief.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving offences under IPC 498A, 323, 341, 379 and Dowry Prohibition Act 3/4.
- Whether the police arrest and magistrate's detention complied with the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and related Supreme Court directives.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief given the matrimonial disputes and allegations of second marriage.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 167, 41, 41A
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 379, 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- arrest procedure
- Section 498A
- dowry prohibition
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- police compliance
- Criminal Procedure Code
- marital dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32752 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2021 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Shailendra Mandal, S/o Ramanand Mandal, Resident of Village- Dhemomen
Colony New Quarter Kharmbad, Ashansol, P.S.- Ashansol, District-
Barddhaman (West Bengal).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Priyanka Kumari, D/o Abhimanyu Mahato, W/o Shailendra Mandal, R/o
Vill.- Mohaddinagar, P.S.- Halsi, Distt.- Lakhisarai.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mrigendra Pratap Singh, Adv.
For the O.P. No. : Mr. Om Prakash Maharaj, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 13-01-2026 In pursuance of this Court’s order dated 12.12.2025,
the petitioner as well as the opposite party No. 2 are physically
present in Chambers with their respective lawyers.
2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in course of the day. Let the
same be taken on record.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32752 of 2025(5) dt.13-01-2026
2/8
3. Heard Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, the learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Om Prakash Maharaj, the
learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The State has been
represented by Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor.
4. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Complaint Case No. 111C of 2021 registered
for the offence(s) under Section(s) 498(A), 323, 341 and 379 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
5. This Court had called upon the petitioner and
opposite party no. 2 to verify as to whether they were eager to
settle their differences and lead a conjugal life again. However,
both the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 showed their
unwillingness to reside together and they had their own stories
against each other. Both the petitioner as well as O.P. No. 2 have
alleged that the other side has solemnized second marriage and,
hence, it is not possible for them to stay together again.
6. The present case was lodged by opposite party no.
2 alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the
petitioner on 30.11.2019 and thereafter the petitioner started
demanding a sum of one lakh rupees from the complainant as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32752 of 2025(5) dt.13-01-2026
3/8
dowry. It has been further alleged that the complainant became
pregnant during the said period and was taken to her parental
house, where she gave birth to a child. However, neither the
petitioner nor his other family members came even to see the
child despite having received information. From perusal of the
FIR, it is evident that the offence alleged against the petitioner
carries punishment of less than seven years.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2014 SC 2756, has laid
down guidelines as to how the police and the learned Magistrate
have to act in respect of offences which carry punishment up to
seven years or less than seven years. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) has held that before a
Magistrate authorises detention under Section 167 Cr.P.C he has
to be first satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in
accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of the
person arrested are satisfied.
8. It has been further submitted that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in the case of Md. Asfak Alam vs. the State of
Jharkhand and another, reported in (2023) 8 SCC 632, has
directed all courts to strictly follow the law laid down in Arnesh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32752 of 2025(5) dt.13-01-2026
4/8
Kumar (supra) and has reiterated the directions in paragraph
no. 16.1 contained therein as well as other directions which are
as follows:-
16.1 “11. Our endeavour in this
judgment is to ensure that police officers do
not arrest the accused unnecessarily and
Magistrates do not authorise detention
casually and mechanically. In order to
ensure what we have observed above, we
give the following directions:
11.1. All the State Governments to
instruct its police officers not to
automatically arrest when a case under
Section 498-AIPC is registered but to satisfy
themselves about the necessity for arrest
under the parameters laid down above
flowing from Section 41CrPC;
11.2. All police officers be
provided with a checklist containing
specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)
(ii);
11.3. The police officer shall
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32752 of 2025(5) dt.13-01-2026
5/8
forward the checklist duly filled and furnish
the reasons and materials which necessitated
the arrest, while forwarding/producing the
accused before the Magistrate for further
detention;
11.4. The Magistrate while
authorising detention of the accused shall
peruse the report furnished by the police
officer in terms aforesaid and only after
recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will
authorise detention;
11.5. The decision not to arrest an
accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate
within two weeks from the date of the
institution of the case with a copy to the
Magistrate which may be extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the district for
the reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.6. Notice of appearance in
terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the
accused within two weeks from the date of
institution of the case, which may be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32752 of 2025(5) dt.13-01-2026
6/8
extended by the Superintendent of Police of
the district for the reasons to be recorded in
writing;
11.7. Failure to comply with the
directions aforesaid shall apart from
rendering the police officers concerned liable
for departmental action, they shall also be
liable to be punished for contempt of court to
be instituted before the High Court having
territorial jurisdiction.
11.8. Authorising detention
without recording reasons as aforesaid by the
Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable
for departmental action by the appropriate
High Court.
12. We hasten to add that the
directions aforesaid shall not only apply to
the cases under Section 498-A IPC or Sec. 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in
hand, but also such cases where offence is
punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may be less than seven years or which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32752 of 2025(5) dt.13-01-2026
7/8
may extend to seven years, whether with or
without fine.”
16.2.(II) The High Court shall
frame the above directions in the form of
notifications and guidelines to be followed
by the Sessions Courts and all other and
criminal courts dealing with various
offences.
16.3.(III) Likewise, the Director
General of Police in all States shall ensure
that strict instructions in terms of the above
directions are issued. Both the High Courts
and the DGPs of all States shall ensure that
such guidelines and
Directives/Departmental Circulars are
issued for guidance of all lower courts and
police authorities in each State within eight
weeks from today.
16.4.(IV) Affidavits of compliance
shall be filed before this Court within ten
weeks by all the States and High Courts,
through their Registrars.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32752 of 2025(5) dt.13-01-2026
8/8
9. Learned APP further points out that the Hon’ble
Patna High Court, in compliance of the order passed in Md.
Ashfaq Alam (supra), has issued Memo No. 62973 dated
19.09.2023, directing that all courts under the territorial
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Patna High Court shall be required to
follow the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar (supra).
10. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to
make himself available before the police and he shall be
extended the benefit of the directions as laid down in the case of
Arnesh Kumar (supra) as well as in terms of Memo No. 62973
dated 19.09.2023 issued by the Hon’ble Patna High Court under
the signature of the learned Registrar General.
11. With the aforesaid directions, the present
anticipatory bail application is disposed of.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
aditya/-
U T
Checking your session…