Patna High Court
Amit Kumar PradhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a bond, sureties, and conditions of cooperation and maintenance payment.
Summary
Amit Kumar Pradhan, an army personnel, was arrested in a complaint filed by his wife, Anjali Rai, alleging dowry demand and torture under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC. The petitioner argued that the marriage had effectively broken down, citing a dismissed divorce petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and his willingness to pay a modest monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000, subject to any court order. The State opposed bail, while the complainant denied receiving any dowry and contested the claim that she was a private teacher. The court, after considering the circumstances, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, imposing conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., including cooperation with the investigation and a provision for cancellation if maintenance payments were not made. The bail application was therefore disposed of in the petitioner’s favour.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a pending 498A and 323 IPC case.
- Whether the alleged breakdown of the marital relationship and the pending maintenance claim affect the grant of bail.
- Whether imposing conditions of monthly maintenance payment and cooperation with investigation is appropriate under the law.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Hindu Marriage Act — s. 13(B)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A
Subjects
- bail
- dowry harassment
- domestic violence
- IPC 498A
- IPC 323
- maintenance
- marriage dissolution
- army personnel
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66978 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2022 Thana- BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE District-
Buxar
======================================================
Amit Kumar Pradhan S/o Satyendra Pradhan R/o Village- Jalilpur, P.S.-
Rajpur, District- Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anjali Rai W/o Amit Kumar Pradhan and D/o Jay Shankar Rai R/o Village-
Sonpa, P.S.- Rajpur, District- Buxar, at present residing at Malahchakiya,
Hawai Adda, P.S.- Buxar Mufassil, District- Buxar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vaishnavi Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nityanand
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 17-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is based upon a complaint filed
by the opposite party no. 2 in which she has made an allegation
of demand of dowry and torture. Petitioner is the husband of
opposite party no.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner is an Army personnel and as a matter of fact, it is
the complainant herself who is not desirous of staying with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66978 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
2/3
petitioner and had thus filed a case for divorce under Section
13(B) which was eventually dismissed for non-prosecution. It
has also been submitted that the complainant herself is a
private teacher and it has also been admitted by her in the
13(B) proceedings that no conjugal relationship was
established between them for at least 16 to 17 months when
there were staying separately from each other.
5. The application is opposed by the learned APP for
the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. It has
specifically been submitted by the learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2, that till date no amount is being given to
her, however, he admits that a maintenance case has been filed.
He further makes a strong denial of the fact that the opposite
party no. 2 is a private teacher.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner proposes to pay an amount of Rs.
5000/- (rupees five thousand) per month to opposite party no.2
in the first week of every month. It goes without saying that the
aforesaid payment shall be subject to any order passed in
matrimonial maintenance case or any other collateral
proceeding.
7. In such view of the matter, let the above named
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66978 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
3/3
petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the
case is pending/successor court in connection with Complaint
Case No. 202 of 2022, subject to the condition as laid down
under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S., and
subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall
cooperate in the investigation/trial.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, under
instruction, submits that the opposite party no.2 undertakes to
provide her bank account details to the petitioner within a
period of two weeks from today. If the opposite party no.2
furnishes the bank account in which the amount can be
transferred, and yet the petitioner fails to give the aforesaid
amount on two consecutive dates to opposite party no.2, the
opposite party no.2 would be at liberty to file cancellation of
bail.
9. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.
devendra/- (Soni Shrivastava, J)
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.