Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court ordered that the petitioner be released on conditional pre‑arrest bail and directed the matter to be referred to mediation, disposing of the application.
Summary
Rahul Kumar Singh petitioned for pre‑arrest bail in a case where his wife alleged physical and mental torture for dowry demands, invoking sections of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner claimed innocence and expressed willingness to settle the matrimonial dispute amicably. Both parties, including the informant, agreed to appear before the District Court for mediation. The High Court observed that matrimonial disputes are private matters and should not be pursued as criminal offenses unless there is genuine criminal content, citing the Apex Court's stance on encouraging settlement. Accordingly, the Court directed the District Court to refer the matter to a mediator, granting interim protection and conditional pre‑arrest bail, with the bail to be formalized by the District Court based on the mediation outcome. The application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a matrimonial dispute involving alleged dowry harassment.
- Whether the criminal proceedings should be stayed pending mediation and settlement of the private dispute.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 316(2), 352/3(5), 85, 89
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- matrimonial dispute
- dowry harassment
- mediation
- abuse of process
- criminal procedure
- family law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69532 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2025 Thana- AMNAUR District- Saran
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Singh S/o Late Raj Kumar Singh Resident of Village - Dhorlahi
Kaithal, P.S - Amnaur, District - Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Neha Raj W/o Rahul Kumar Singh D/o Santosh Singh, R/o Mohalla - East
Rauja, P.S - Town (Chapra), District - Saran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anjani Parashar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Anita Kumari, APP
For the informant : Mr. Yashraj Bhardhan, Advocate
Mr. Abhimanyu Kr., Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
informant.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Amnaur P.S. Case No. 213 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections
115(2),126(2),89,109(1),316(2),85,352/3(5) of the BNS and
Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
informant, soon after her marriage, was subjected to physical
and mental torture by her husband and her in-laws due to non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69532 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/5
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely
been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that
petitioner always tries to lead a peaceful married life with the
informant but she never co-operates with him on the instigation
of her family members. Learned counsel further submitted that
marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish
suddenly erupts into hatred and the parties ponder to reconcile
their dispute outside the court.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submitted that informant has no objection, if
petitioner wants to settle the dispute amicably outside the court.
6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable
settlement outside the court.
7. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the
respective parties, on instruction, submitted that the parties have
agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.
on or before 27.02.2026 for resolving the dispute by way of
mediation.
8. Heard the parties.
9. The matrimonial dispute is not an offense against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69532 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/5
the society rather a matrimonial dispute is a private conflict
between spouses and does not inherently constitute an offence
against society. However, a false case can have a disastrous
consequence in absence of any criminal content. The personal
dispute cannot call for a criminal offence. In such situation,
continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of
process of law leading to vexatious proceeding against the
petitioner.
10. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of B.S.
Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675, in
paragraph nos. 12 and 13 has held as under:-
“12. The special features in such matrimonial matters
are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
13. The observations made by this Court, though in a
slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad
[(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt
for determining the approach required to be kept in view
in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that
there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in
recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in
which elders of the family are also involved with the
result that those who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their
being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are
many other reasons which need not be mentioned here
for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate
their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and
years to conclude and in that process the parties lose
their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different
courts.”
11. The petitioner and informant have willingly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69532 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/5
desired to appear before the learned District Court on or before
27.02.2026, so that the matter can be referred to the District
Mediation Centre.
12. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to refer the matter before the learned Mediator
of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for appearance
of the parties to give effect to Mediation 2.0.
13. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
concerned upon appearance of the parties on the fixed date shall
make his/her best efforts to settle the dispute amicably and
thereafter submit his/her report before the concerned learned
District Court, well within a period of four months, till then, no
coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in
connection with the aforesaid case.
14. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably
or arrive at a mutual settlement, in light of the law laid down by
the Apex Court, the petitioner is required to be released on pre-
arrest bail on such terms and conditions as the learned District
Court deems it fit and proper.
15. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear on or before 27.02.2026 before the learned District Court
or any date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69532 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
5/5
granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force.
16. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the opposite
party no.2 to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection
granted to the petitioner shall continue and the trial shall
proceed in accordance with law.
17. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that
case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. Then also, petitioner
is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
18. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…