Patna High Court
Viraat BatraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to bond and surety conditions, with the power to cancel if criminal antecedents or false statements are later discovered.
Summary
The petitioner, Viraat Batra, sought bail in a case registered under Section 85 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act, alleging that the allegations of dowry harassment and physical/mental torture were false and stemmed from a matrimonial dispute. The informant-wife, Tanya Arora, claimed she was subjected to dowry demands, torture, and that her personal documents and jewelry were retained by the petitioner. Both parties have pending family court proceedings – a divorce petition by the petitioner and a maintenance suit by the wife – and the court noted that such civil disputes do not preclude bail. Citing the maximum punishment of three years and the precedent of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the court held that bail could be granted subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023. Accordingly, the court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to cancellation if criminal antecedents or false statements were discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case under Section 85 B.N.S., 2023 and Section ¾ D.P. Act where the maximum punishment is three years.
- Whether the existence of a matrimonial dispute and pending family court proceedings affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023 are applicable to the bail order.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of prior bail application influences the decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 85
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 482(2)
- D.P. Act — s. ¾
Subjects
- bail
- dowry harassment
- matrimonial dispute
- Section 85 B.N.S.
- Section ¾ D.P. Act
- anticipatory bail
- family law
- maintenance
- restitution of conjugal rights
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71163 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2024 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West
Champaran
======================================================
Viraat Batra son of Vikram Batra R/o - 3/429, Hari Om Nagar, Marris Road,
P.S - Aligarh Town, District - Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Tanya Arora Wife of Viraat Batra Resident of Village- Teen Lalten Chowk,
near Gurudvara, Arora House, P.S.- Bettiah town, Dist- West Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kant Mani Tripathi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mayank Mohan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest,
in connection with Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 560 of 2024,
dated 29.12.2024, registered for the offences punishable under
Section 85 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section ¾ of D.P. Act.
3. As per allegation, the marriage between the
petitioner and the informant/Tanya Arora was solemnized on
02.12.2022 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and thereafter, she
joined the matrimonial home of the petitioner. But soon
thereafter, additional demand of dowry started and on account of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71163 of 2025(6) dt.01-04-2026
2/5
non-fulfillment of the same, the informant-wife was subjected to
physical and mental torturing by the petitioner and his family
members. It is also alleged that the petitioner-husband has illicit
relationship with one lady and on protest by the informant-wife,
torturing became further intense and ultimately, she was
compelled to leave the matrimonial home and presently, she is
living at her maike since 29.07.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that as a matter of fact, there is lack of
trust by the informant-wife in the petitioner-husband and she has
suspicion that the petitioner is having illicit relationship,
whereas there is no such fact. He further submits that on account
of suspicion, the matrimonial life of the petitioner-husband and
the informant-wife is running into rough weather and the
petitioner has filed one divorce petition and the informant-wife
has filed even one maintenance case against him which are
pending consideration. He also submits that the maximum
punishment for the alleged offence is three years and hence,
there is no reason to deprive the petitioner of his liberty,
particularly in view of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar &
Anr. as reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71163 of 2025(6) dt.01-04-2026
3/5
5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier
either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.
6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the
bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
7. However, learned APP for the State and learned
counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer of the
Petitioner for bail submitting that the informant-wife is still
ready to live with the petitioner, but the petitioner-husband is
not interested to keep her in his matrimonial home. The
informant-wife has also filed one maintenance case against the
petitioner. They also submit that the informant-wife is a degree
holder of Fashion Designing, but her passport, degree
certificates and jewelry are kept by the petitioner-husband and
his family members which they are not giving.
8. I considered the submissions advanced by both the
parties and perused the materials on record.
9. From the rival submissions of the parties, it appears
that there is matrimonial dispute between the parties on account
of suspicion and other factors and for their matrimonial dispute,
the parties have already approached Family Court by way of
divorce petition by the petitioner-husband and maintenance case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71163 of 2025(6) dt.01-04-2026
4/5
by the informant-wife the informant-wife. The informant-wife
has again right to move learned Family Court by way of filing
matrimonial suit for restitution of conjugal rights if she wants
enforcement of restitution of conjugal rights against the
petitioner-husband. She has also liberty to file appropriate
application before the learned Family Court for getting back the
ornaments and other documents, if any.
10. Considering the fact that the maximum
punishment for the alleged offence is three years and there being
dispute between the parties in substance, this petition is
allowed, directing the petitioner, above-named, to be enlarged
on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court
below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt /
production of a copy of this order, on his furnishing bail bonds
in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned concerned
Court below, in connection with Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 560
of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482 (2) of the B.N.S.S 2023, and on the following conditions:
(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents, learned
court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71163 of 2025(6) dt.01-04-2026
5/5
hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the
same.
(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong,
learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Jitendra Kumar, J)
shoaib/-
U T
Checking your session…