Patna High Court
Dhananjay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a bond and sureties under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Summary
Petitioner Dhananjay Kumar sought bail fearing arrest in a case registered under multiple sections of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes (B.N.S.), 2023. The case had been referred to mediation, but the petitioner appeared on three of four dates while the respondent wife (O.P. No.2) failed to appear, offering no documentary proof of illness. The respondent’s counsel argued the mediation failed and alleged the petitioner was falsely implicated, but did not provide evidence for the wife’s non‑appearance. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the wife’s absence was a tactic to prolong the case and that the petitioner should be released on bail. Justice Satyavrat Verma ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving offences under Sections 126, 115(2), 109, 85, 208, 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
- Whether the failure of mediation and the respondent’s non‑appearance affect the bail application.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 permits the grant of bail in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126, 208, 3(5), 351(3), 352, 482(2), 85
Subjects
- bail
- mediation
- criminal procedure
- Section 482
- B.N.S. 2023
- false implication
- conjugal rights
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60604 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2025 Thana- Kaler District- Arwal
======================================================
Dhananjay Kumar S/o Bayash Ray Resident of village- Samahariya, P.S.-
Kaler, District- Arwal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Reshu Kumari W/O Dhananjay Kumar, D/O Babua Ji Ray Resident of
village- Samahariya, P.S.- Kaler, District- Arwal At Present Residing at Vill.-
Karwashin, P.S.- Sahar, Dist.- Bhojpur (Ara)
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advodate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of
O.P. No.2.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 126, 115(2), 109, 85,
208, 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
case was taken up on 11.09.2025 when the case was referred for
mediation based on joint submission made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, i.e., petitioner and
O.P. No.2. It is submitted that before the learned Mediator, the
case was taken up on four dates and the petitioner appeared on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60604 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
three dates. It is submitted that petitioner could not appear on
one date for the reason that his mother had expired but then O.P.
No.2 did not appear on a single date nor any application was
filed on her behalf before the learned Mediator assigning reason
for her non-appearance.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant does not dispute the said submission of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that O.P. No.2 did
not appear before the learned Mediator on any of the four dates
but then submits that informant was getting treated at Delhi on
which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bald
plea is being taken. It is further submitted that the mediation
failed on 25.11.2025 and the case thereafter is being taken up
today, i.e., after more than two months of failure of the
reconciliation proceeding but then neither before the learned
Mediator nor before this Court, any application has been filed
bringing on record any documentary evidence to substantiate
that O.P. No.2 was suffering from such disease for which she
was under treatment at Delhi based on which she could not
attend the mediation proceeding. It is thus, submitted that a bald
plea is being taken. It is also submitted that petitioner being
husband has been falsely implicated in the instant case by O.P.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60604 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
No.2 and O.P. No.2 does not intend to restitute her conjugal
rights, as such, petitioner had no option but to file an application
seeking divorce. It is further submitted that O.P. No.2 is only
interested in prolonging the case or else O.P. No.2 would have
appeared before the learned Mediator and if she was not in a
position to appear for any valid reason, in that event, she could
have intimated the learned Mediator through her learned lawyer
or else could have moved before this Court seeking extension of
time but then no such step was taken.
5. Considering the submissions made on behalf of
learned counsel for the petitioner, let petitioner, above named, in
the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Arwal in
connection with Kaler P.S. Case No.48 of 2025, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…