Patna High Court

Pradeep ChaupalversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 9 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to a bond and sureties, applying Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482 B.N.S.S., 2023.

Summary

Petitioner Pradeep Chaupal, husband of Dropati Kumari, sought bail in a complaint case (No. 188‑C of 2024) alleging offences under Section 498‑A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He denied any dowry demand or matrimonial cruelty, claiming he was falsely implicated solely because of his marital relationship. The petitioner argued that the matter was triable before a magistrate and relied on the precedent of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari v. State of Bihar. The Court, after hearing counsel and noting the absence of representation for the second opposite party, considered the bail application under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482 B.N.S.S., 2023. It ordered that bail be granted on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to the usual conditions, and directed the petitioner to surrender within eight weeks.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted in a complaint case under Section 498‑A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and lack of matrimonial cruelty warrants bail.
Whether the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482 B.N.S.S., 2023 are applicable.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 482
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 498-A

Subjects

bail
Section 498-A
dowry prohibition
matrimonial cruelty
Criminal Procedure Code
complaint case

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47596 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - BIRAUL AT
                                              BENIPUR District- Darbhanga
                 ======================================================
                 Pradeep Chaupal S/o Late Sikandra Chaupal @ Sikki Chaupal R/o Village -
                 Larach, P.S.- Kusheshwar Asthan, Distt.- Darbhanga

                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Dropati Kumari W/o Pradeep Chaupal, D/o Ram Kumar Chaupal R/o vill -
                 Larach, P.S.- Kusheshwar Asthan, Distt.- Darbhanga, At present residing vill
                 - Balath, P.S.- Biraul, Distt.- Darbhanga

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner     :       Ms.Sushmita Mishra
                 For the State          :       Ms.Veena Kumari Jaiswal
                 For the O.P.-2         :       None
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   09-02-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State. Despite valid service of notice, nobody

                   appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

                                 2. The petitioner, husband of the opposite party no. 2,

                    apprehends his arrest in a complaint case punishable for the

                    offence under Section 498-A & other allied sections of the

                    Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

                    Act.

                                 3. Allegation against petitioner is of matrimonial

                    cruelty and demand for dowry.

                               4. While denying the allegations made in the complaint
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47596 of 2025(6) dt.09-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                      petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                      petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely

                      because he happens to be husband of opposite party no. 2. At

                      no point of time, petitioner demanded any dowry or committed

                      torture with opposite party no. 2 and is still ready to keep the

                      opposite party no. 2 with full honour and dignity. Moreover,

                      the case is triable by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has

                      further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of

                      Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors.

                      Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182.

                                  5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

                     in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of eight weeks

                     from today, let this petitioner, as named above, be enlarged on

                     bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with

                     two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

                     learned A.C.J.M. 1st, Biraul, Darbhanga in connection with

                     Complaint Case No. 188-C of 2024, subject to the conditions, as

                     laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. / Section 482 of

                     the B.N.S.S., 2023.



                                                    (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
anay

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…