Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Rajesh SahversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a monetary bond and specific conditions, including monthly payments to the complainant.

Summary

The petitioner, Rajesh Sah, husband of Simpi Devi, was charged under Section 498A of the IPC for alleged dowry harassment and torture. Fearing arrest, he denied the allegations and offered to pay Rs 3,000 per month as temporary relief to his wife. The High Court, after an unsuccessful mediation, considered his bail application. Relying on his undertaking and the provisions of Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including monthly payments and possible cancellation for non‑compliance. The order also stipulated that the payment arrangement would not affect any separate matrimonial or maintenance proceedings.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted to a person accused under Section 498A IPC pending trial.
  • Whether the petitioner’s undertaking to pay a monthly amount can be imposed as a condition of bail.
  • Whether the provisions of Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482 B.N.S.S. empower the High Court to grant bail with such conditions.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • dowry harassment
  • Section 498A
  • bail
  • temporary relief
  • mediation
  • Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60337 of 2025
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1322 Year-2024 Thana- GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE
                                                   District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Rajesh Sah S/o Kashi Nath Sah R/o vill - Piprahia, P.S.- Barauli, Distt.-
                 Gopalganj

                                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Simpi Devi D/o Gautam Sah R/o vill - Mathurapur, P.s.- Madhopur, Distt.-
                 Gopalganj

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr.Harsh Anuj, Advocate
                                               Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :    Mr.Nand Kumar, APP
                                               Mr. Naresh Prasad, Adv.for OP-2
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   06-07-2026                   Pursuant to order of this Court, the matter was

                   referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre of Patna High

                   Court, but the dispute between the parties could not be resolved

                   through the process of mediation and as such, mediation failed.

                                 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant /

                   opposite party no. 2.

                                 3. The petitioner, who is husband of opposite party no.

                   2, apprehends his arrest in a complaint case punishable for the

                   offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

                                 4. Petitioner is alleged to have committed torture and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60337 of 2025(4) dt.06-07-2026
                                            2/3




          harassment with opposite party no. 2 for dowry.

                       5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner denies the allegation made in the complaint petition

          and submits that he never committed torture to opposite party

          no. 2 or demanded any dowry.                     However, the petitioner

          undertakes to give Rs. 3,000/-per month by way of temporary

          relief/solace, starting from this month, to the opposite party

          no.2.

                       6. In view of the undertaking of learned counsel for

          the petitioner that petitioner is ready to give temporary

          relief/solace of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) per month

          to the opposite party no. 2, in the event of arrest/surrender

          within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above-named

          petitioner 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 learned J.M. II class, Gopalganj /

          concerned Court in connection with Trial No. 108 of 2024,

          arising out of Complaint Case No. 1322 of 2024, subject to the

          conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. /

          Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. as well as on the following

          conditions:-

                       “(1) Opposite party no. 2 would file an affidavit
                            before the court below and bring on record her
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60337 of 2025(4) dt.06-07-2026
                                                       3/3




                                       savings       bank      account    number   for   its
                                       communication to the petitioner.
                                  (2) Petitioner would deposit the aforesaid amount
                                       per month in the savings bank account of the
                                       opposite party no. 2.
                                  (3) In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the
                                       aforesaid amount for two consecutive months,
                                       the court below would be at liberty to cancel
                                       the bail-bond.
                                  (4) The aforementioned payment will be subject to
                                       any order passed in matrimonial, maintenance
                                       or connected proceedings. The present order, in
                                       no way, will preclude the parties to resolve the
                                       issue otherwise.”



                                           (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
anay

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.