Patna High Court

Rocky Raj @ Goverdhan Sah @ GoverdhanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 1 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The Court ordered the parties to attempt mediation and granted interim protection to the petitioner, disposing of the bail application subject to conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Rocky Raj, sought pre‑arrest bail in a case arising from a matrimonial dispute where the informant alleged assault, torture, and forced abortion. The petitioner contended that the allegations were false and that the parties were willing to reconcile through community mediation or under the Mediation Act, 2023. The State and the informant’s counsel supported giving the parties an opportunity to settle amicably. The Court, relying on precedents such as Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, held that matrimonial conflicts are private matters and encouraged settlement before proceeding with criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to keep the informant in his house and to pursue mediation, granting interim protection that would lapse if the parties failed to appear or reconcile, and disposed of the bail application.

Issues considered

Whether a pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a matrimonial dispute involving alleged offences under the IPC and BNS.
Whether the parties can be directed to attempt settlement through mediation before the bail is decided.
Whether the Court can condition bail on successful mediation under the Mediation Act, 2023.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 320, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 498-A

Subjects

pre‑arrest bail
matrimonial dispute
mediation
Section 498-A IPC
CrPC 482
family law
settlement

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3598 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-535 Year-2025 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Rocky Raj @ Goverdhan Sah @ Goverdhan Son of Gajadhar @ Gajadhar
Prasad Gupta, Resident of Village/Mohalla- Ambedkarnagar, P.S. -
Bakhtiyarpur, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ayushi Kumari D/o Banarasi Lal Gupta, permanent R/o Karken Bazar,
Hatiya Mandir, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
For the informant : Mr. Magan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Dilip Kumar, APP
======================================================
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/informant.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection

with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 535/2025 for the offences

punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 82(1), 89, 352,

351(2), 84 3(5)of the BNS.

3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the

marriage between O.P. No. 2 and the petitioner was solemnized

on 25.06.2023. After about one year of marriage, the informant

came to know that the petitioner had already married another
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3598 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/6

woman. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner and his in-

laws used to assault the informant and subject her to various

sorts of torture and cruelty. It is further alleged that the

informant was forcibly made to undergo an abortion by the

petitioner and her sisters-in-law.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the O.P.

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. Learned counsel further

submitted that the petitioner is ready to keep O.P.

No.2/informant in his house and then they will proceed to settle

their dispute amicably by way of community mediation or by

way of mediation in accordance with Mediation Act, 2023.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.

No.2 submitted that presently the O.P. No.2 is residing with her

parents and she is also ready to live with the petitioner.

6. Learned APP for the State submitted that

opportunity shall be given to the parties to reconcile their

dispute amicably.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3598 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/6

7. Heard the parties.

8. 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 Rajendra Bhagat v. State of

Jharkhand, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 465 in paragraph no.9

which is as under:-

“9. Taking note of the object of
Section 498-AIPC, the expected approach of
the High Court in the event of bona fide
settlement of disputes had been duly
exposited by this Court in B.S. Joshi v. State
of Haryana [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,
(2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] ,
wherein this Court has underscored the duty
of the Court to encourage the genuine
settlement of matrimonial disputes and said
as under : (SCC pp. 682-83, paras 12-16)
“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 [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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3598 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
4/6

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.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the
Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a
woman by her husband or by relatives of her
husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to
punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or
torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to
satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The
hypertechnical view would be counterproductive
and would act against interests of women and
against the object for which this provision was
added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of
inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the
ends of justice would prevent women from settling
earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the
Penal Code, 1860.
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can
quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint
and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect
the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
16. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the
impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash
the FIR abovementioned.””

9. Considering the desire of the parties that they want

to settle their dispute amicably, the petitioner is directed to keep

O.P. No.2/informant/wife in his house and thereafter proceed to

settle their dispute amicably by way of community mediation.

In case, the parties fail to do so then in that case, the parties may

settle their dispute by way of mediation in accordance with

Mediation Act, 2023 by approaching the learned District Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3598 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
5/6

10. In case the petitioner approaches the learned

District Court then in that case, the 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”.

11. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center

concerned, upon appearance of the parties, shall make his/her

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.

12. 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.

13. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to

appear 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3598 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
6/6

14. 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.

15. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that

case, parties may avail appropriate remedy.

16. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,

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

have lodged against each other.

17. With aforesaid direction and observation, the

present application stands disposed of.

18. 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)
Sanjay/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…