Patna High Court
Uttam Kumar ChaubeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court confirmed the provisional bail granted to the petitioner, subject to conditions.
Summary
Uttam Kumar Chaubey was charged under IPC sections 341, 323, 498A, 504/34 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4 for alleged cruelty and assault related to a dowry demand. The petitioner sought bail after a provisional bail was granted on 5 July 2024 and extended on 1 October 2024, with the case referred to mediation which later failed. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated, that no specific overt act was alleged, and that he and his wife were living together, despite having three prior criminal antecedents. The State opposed bail, while the informant corroborated the petitioner’s cohabitation claim. Considering the cohabitation, the period already spent in custody, and the failure of mediation, the court confirmed the provisional bail with conditions to treat his wife with dignity and to appear at every trial date.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite allegations under IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the failure of mediation and the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 498A, 504/34
Subjects
- bail
- dowry harassment
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- mediation
- criminal antecedents
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46148 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-542 Year-2023 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Uttam Kumar Chaubey S/o Sachchidanand Chaubey Resident of vill.- Sabeya
Chargaha, P.S.-Sirisiya O.P., Dist- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arun Kumar Dubey S/o Late Mathura Dubey R/o vill - Jabdaul, P.S. -
Kumarbagh O.P., Distt. - West Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sitesh Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sachidanand Rai, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
7 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Chanpatiya (Sirisiya O.P.) P.S. Case No. 542 of 2023 instituted
for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant’s
daughter was subjected to cruelty and assault by the petitioner
and his family members for the non-fulfillment of demand of
dowry.
4. Vide order dated 05.07.2024, the petitioner was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46148 of 2024(7) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
granted provisional bail for a period of three months for
exploring the possibility of amicable resolution of the dispute.
Again, vide order dated 01.10.2024, the provisional bail of the
petitioner was extended till further orders and the matter was
referred to District Mediation and Conciliation Centre, West
Champaran for amicable settlement of dispute. However, as per
the report submitted by the District and Additional Sessions
Judge-XII, I/c-cum-Coordinator, District Mediation Centre,
West Champaran, Bettiah, it appears that mediation has failed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and
omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. No
specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. Learned
counsel further submitted that petitioner never demanded any
dowry nor tortured his wife. He further submitted that, as a
matter of fact, the petitioner and his wife are living together. It
has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner
has three criminal antecedents.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for
grant of bail to the petitioner. However, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant submitted that petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46148 of 2024(7) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
and his wife are living together.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and since the petitioner and his wife are living
together as per the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner and the informant as also taking into account the
period of custody undergone by the petitioner, the provisional
bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 05.07.2024 is
hereby confirmed, subject to the following conditions:
(I) Petitioner shall keep his wife with full honour and
dignity.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two
consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…