Salesh Kumar @ Sailesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61445 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-740 Year-2017 Thana- JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE
                                                    District- Jehanabad
                 ======================================================
                 Salesh Kumar @ Sailesh Kumar S/o Mathura Prasad @ Mathura Yadav @
                 Jhaman Yadav R/o vill - Sikariya Koshiyama, P.s.- Pali, Distt.- Jehanabad

                                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Sanju Devi @ Savitri Devi W/o Salesh Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar, D/o Ram
                 Ishwar Yadav R/o vill - Pir Ali Chak, P.S.- Kako, Distt.- Jehanabad

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr.Sunil Kumar, Adv
                 For the Opposite Party/s :    Ms.Sucheta Yadav, APP
                                               Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Adv
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

7   07-04-2026               1.    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of

                   the OP No. 2.

                             2.    The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Complaint Case No. 740 of 2017 registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 498A, 494 and 34 of IPC.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner being husband has been falsely implicated in the

                   instant case by the complainant. It is next submitted that from

                   perusal of the allegations as alleged in the complaint, it would

                   manifest that allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is

                   further submitted that petitioner was married to the OP No. 2 in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61445 of 2025(7) dt.07-04-2026
                                            2/4




          the year 2004 and out of wedlock, a child was born and in the

          year 2017 the instant complaint case came to be instituted, i.e.,

          after 13 years of marriage, but then in these 13 years, no case

          ever came to be instituted alleging that petitioner is demanding

          dowry and on account of non-fulfillment of the same, is

          torturing the complainant.

                   4.     Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          complainant submits no doubt the complaint case came to be

          instituted after 13 years of marriage, but then after marriage, a

          child was born, as such complainant had no means to object the

          cruelty being meted out to her. It is next submitted that the

          instant complaint case has been filed since the complainant was

          ousted from her matrimonial home along with the child and

          petitioner has performed his second marriage and is enjoying his

          life with the second wife but then is not giving any money to

          support the complainant and the child. It is also submitted that

          complainant had moved before the learned Principal Judge,

          Family Court, Jehanabad by filing Maintenance Case No. 1 of

          2018 and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad

          directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.

          10,000/- to the OP No. 2 and Rs. 5,000/- to the child but then the

          petitioner for reasons best known did not pay a single penny
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61445 of 2025(7) dt.07-04-2026
                                            3/4




          rather challenged the said order passed by the learned Principal

          Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad, by filing criminal revision

          before this Court which is pending adjudication. Learned

          counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No. 2 thus submits that

          the petitioner on the one hand is not willing to maintain the

          complainant and the child and on the other hand has performed

          his second marriage and is supporting his second wife and is

          enjoying life, as such one can well imagine the plight of the

          complainant how she is surviving in absence of any financial

          support from the petitioner and she has a child to rear also.

                   5.     Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submission of the

          learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No. 2 that the

          petitioner has performed his second marriage.

                   6.     At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on

          behalf of the OP No. 2 submits that even the second marriage is

          void as the same has been performed without divorcing the OP

          No. 2 which in itself is a cause of great mental trauma.

                   7.     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

          the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory

          bail to the petitioner.

                   8.     Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61445 of 2025(7) dt.07-04-2026
                                                          4/4




                        petitioner is rejected.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T