Patna High Court
Aditi Shahi @ Aditi KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The anticipatory bail order remains in force and the application for its cancellation is dismissed.
Summary
Aditi Shahi filed a petition seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail previously granted to her father-in-law, Narayan Prasad Shahi, and mother-in-law, Veena Shahi, in a dowry‑related matter. The High Court noted that the earlier order dated 14‑11‑2022 had granted anticipatory bail to the opposite parties and allowed them to approach a District Mediation Centre for reconciliation. The opposite parties contended that no dowry demand was made and they were willing to treat the petitioner with dignity, but mediation could not proceed due to their advanced age and health issues. The Court examined whether there were sufficient grounds to interfere with the anticipatory bail order. Finding none, the Court dismissed the present application, leaving the anticipatory bail intact and advising the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies.
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law should be cancelled on grounds of alleged dowry harassment
- Whether the parties are capable of undergoing mediation for settlement
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- mediation
- family dispute
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38943 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-277 Year-2021 Thana- BARHIYA District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Aditi Shahi @ Aditi Kumari W/o Late Piyush Shani, D/o Lalit Narayan Singh
R/o Ward no 03 Dhanraj TOLA Barahia at present Piyush shahi complex Flat
no 505 new dak bungalow road opposite N P center, Patna, Phulwari, Patna,
P.S. - Kotwali, Distt. - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Narayan Prasad Shahi s/o Late Rajendra Prasad Shahi R/o 5th Floor 505,
Shahi Complex New Dak Bunglow Road, P.O .- G.P.O., P.S. - Gandhi
Maidan, Distt. - Patna
3. Smt. Veena Shahi W/o Sri Narayan Prasad Shahi R/o 5th Floor 505, Shahi
Complex New Dak Bunglow Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. - Gandhi Maidan,
Distt. - Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
For the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2
and 3.
2. By the order dated 14.11.2022, anticipatory bail
had been granted to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, who were petitioners in the earlier
application being Cr. Misc. No. 23664 of 2022.
3. The submissions advanced on behalf of opposite
parties no.2 and 3 that they neither made any demand for dowry
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38943 of 2024(5) dt.12-01-2026
2/2
or drove her out of her matrimonial home and that they were
ready to keep her with full honour and dignity was also taken
into consideration. By the said order, a liberty had also been
granted to either parties to make an application before the
learned Court concerned for referring the matter to the District
Mediation Center for the purpose of reconciliation or one time
settlement. However, it appears that the mediation could not
materialize as the opposite parties being father-in-law and
mother-in-law, by virtue of their advanced age and other
ailments, as submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite
parties no. 2 and 3, are not in a position to attend the mediation
proceedings.
4. In any view of the matter, the present case involves
the anticipatory bail application of the old and ailing father-in-
law and mother-in-law and I see no reason to interfere with the
said order granting anticipatory bail and in view of the same the
present application is dismissed. However, the petitioner would
always be at liberty to take recourse to other remedies available
to her in law.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…