Patna High Court
Amit Kumar DubeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court ordered the release of the petitioner on pre‑arrest bail, subject to mediation and compliance with conditions set by the District Court.
Summary
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Dubey, was arrested in a dowry‑related assault case filed under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85 and 3(5) of the BNS and D.P. Acts, alleging that he brutally assaulted his wife, the daughter of Bindu Devi, and evicted her from their matrimonial home. He applied for pre‑arrest bail, claiming remorse and a willingness to reconcile, while the State and the opposite party opposed bail on the seriousness of the allegations. The Court observed that matrimonial disputes are essentially private matters and should be resolved through mediation rather than criminal prosecution, citing the Apex Court’s pronouncements in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad. Accordingly, the Court directed the District Court to refer the matter to the District Mediation Centre and granted the petitioner interim protection, conditioning bail on his appearance before the mediator on 11‑03‑2026 and compliance with any settlement. The Court further stipulated that the interim protection would lapse if the petitioner failed to appear, and ordered the petition to be disposed of with the bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether a pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a dowry‑related assault case arising from a matrimonial dispute.
- Whether the nature of the dispute warrants criminal prosecution or can be settled through mediation.
- What conditions, if any, should be imposed on the grant of bail in such cases.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- matrimonial dispute
- dowry
- mediation
- criminal law
- BNS Act
- D.P. Act
- family law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70675 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Siwan
======================================================
Amit Kumar Dubey Son of Harendra Dubey Resident of Village - Santhi, P.S.
- Raghunathpur, Dist. - Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bindu Devi W/o Brij Kishore Mishra Resident of Village - Koluha, P.S. -
Daraunda, Dist. - Siwan.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Shyama Rani, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
For the informant : Mr. Himanshu Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey along with Mr.
Sandeep Kumar and Ms. Shyama Rani, learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh,
learned APP for the State, Mr. Himanshu Ranjan and Mr.
Manish Chandra Gandhi, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Siwan Mahila P.S. Case No. 29/2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2),115(2),85,3(5) of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70675 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/6
the BNS and ¾ of D.P. Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner
who is husband of daughter of opposite party no.2 has brutally
assaulted her and kicked her out of the matrimonial house due to
non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner seeks apology for the
misconduct which he has done with his wife (daughter of the
informant) and once he realizes that he has committed wrong
with his own wife, in future he will not indulge in such activity,
torturing his own wife. 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. On these grounds, petitioner
seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, learned counsel, has
tendered his appearance on behalf of the O.P. No.2. He
submitted that petitioner don’t deserve to be released on pre-
arrest bail, considering the nature of allegation made against the
petitioner. However, in view of the specific information given
in the open Court that the petitioner will seek apology and will
negotiate with daughter of O.P. No.2, by way of last indulgence,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70675 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/6
upon instruction, he also agrees to resolve the dispute amicably,
so that the parties may either continue to live together or they
may settle the dispute outside the Court by way of one time
settlement.
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. Learned counsel for the respective parties, on
instruction, submitted that the petitioner and O.P. No.2 along
with her daughter have agreed to appear before the learned
District Court on 11.03.2026 at 10:30 a.m.
8. Heard the parties.
9. The matrimonial dispute is not an offense against
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70675 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
4/6
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 O.P. No.2 along with her
daughter willingly desired to appear before the learned District
Court on 11.03.2026, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70675 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
5/6
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 three months, till then, no
coercive action shall be taken against the appellant 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 11.03.2026 before the learned District Court or any
date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force.
16. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the opposite
party no.2 along with her daughter 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70675 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
6/6
18. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present petition stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…